Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH 4 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear Street
PAUL FRANK -i COLLINS P.C. January 4, 2005 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: South Village PUD Calkins/South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan and Phase i Preliminary Plat Application Dear Mr. Robertson: Mark G. Hall mhall@PFC/aw.com I recently received a copy of a letter sent to the members of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") by attorney Jon Anderson on behalf of his client, Mr. Skip Vallee. Although my client, South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village"), believes that there is sufficient information in the record at this point on which the DRB can grant its approval of the proposed project, South Village submits the following responses to attorney Anderson's nonsensical arguments. Southeast Quadrant District Criteria In his letter, attorney Anderson, in relying upon the provisions of Section 15.183 of the City South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("SBLDR"), states that he and his client "believe that : (1) open space must be located to absolutely maximize the aesthetic value of the property; (2) building lots must be located to absolutely maximize this protection of open space, natural areas and scenic views; (3) wetlands wildlife habitats and corridors and prominent ridges must be absolutely protected; and (4) open space must be located to absolutely maximize the potential for combination with open space on adjacent properties." While attorney Anderson relies upon certain words and phrases in the provisions of 15.18.13 of the SBLDR to support his position, he neglects other words and phrases which are equally important and tend to refute his proclamation that these terms are "absolute". For instance, attorney Anderson cites Section 15.18.B(1) for the proposition that "open space must be located to absolutely maximize the aesthetic value of the property." However, attorney Anderson places no emphasis on the phrase "while allowing carefully planned development", which is also contained in Section 15.18.13(l). When you consider the entire language of Section 15.18.B(1), it is clear that South Village meets the standard set forth and that attorney Anderson is making yet another feeble attempt to distract the DRB. Another example of this is attorney Anderson's reliance upon certain words and phrases used in Section 15.18.B(3), to support his position that "wetlands wildlife habitats and corridors and ATTORNEYS AT LAW I www.PFC/aw.com One Church Street P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402-1307 phone 802.658.2311 fax 802.658.0042 A Member of TerraLex@ The Worldwide Network of Independent Law Firms Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington January 4, 2005 Page 2 of 3 prominent ridges must be absolutely protected." When read in its entirety, Section 15.18.B(3) makes clear that protection does not amount to, as attorney Anderson suggests, an "absolute" prohibition on development activities within these areas. Section 15.18.B(3) states that "existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan..." (emphasis added). This phrase means that the development plan should recognize natural resources and preserve them when possible. South Village's development plan accomplishes this goal. In addition, attorney Anderson fails to recognize that South Village has designed the project to meet the provisions of Section 15.18.B(2). For instance, Section 15.18.B(2) states that "Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the protection of the open space character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned development at the overall bases densities provided in these Regulations." As stated in my previous letters and as demonstrated at the last public hearing on this matter, South Village utilizes compact settlement patterns, clustered neighborhoods and narrow non linear streets to create an abundance of open space, including parks, commons, greens and pedestrian courtyards, bikeways and walking trails. Therefore, despite attorney Anderson's utilization of semantics, South Village meets the edicts of Section 15.18.B(2). Finally, the project, as proposed meets the provisions of Section 15.18.B(4) of the SBLDR. The open spaces on the Calkins property can be combined with the open space on adjacent property. The best example of this is the large wetland open space which abuts additional open space on an adjacent property. As he has in the past, attorney Anderson has misinterpreted the local regulations to suit his client's position. We again ask that the DRB not be persuaded and reject these tactics. Overall Base Density and Affordable Housing Bonus Attorney Anderson seems to suggest that the affordable housing density bonus provided under Section 13.14 of the SBLDR is not available to South Village because the property is located within the Southeast Quadrant of the City. However, attorney Anderson does not cite to the provisions of Section 13.14 to support his position. He does not cite Section 13.14 because it does not prohibit the use of density bonuses in the Southeast Quadrant of the City. Therefore, once again, attorney Anderson has misapplied the provisions of the local regulations and his position lacks merit as a result. It should also be noted that the number of units proposed by South Village is consistent with the formula contained in Section 13.14. The site contains 223 acres. Pursuant to Table C-2 of the SBLDR, the maximum allowable density per acre in the SEQ is 1.2 dwelling units. Therefore, the base zoning allows for the construction of 264 dwelling units (223 x. 1.2 = 267.7), and the density bonus under Section 13.14 allows for the construction of an additional 66 bonus units (267 x. 25 = 66.75), for a total of 333 units. Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington January 4, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion South Village encourages further dialogue to ensure that its project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the DRB and residents of South Burlington. For more information please contact us at our Burlington office or visit South Village's website at www.southvillage.com. Cordially yours, PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C. Mark G. Hall cc: Mr. Raymond Belair Jon T. Anderson, Esq. Mr. David Scheuer 401028 v1:8346-00005 o Do Do The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S January 3, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City Of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: South Village PRD Calkins /South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application - Site Design Revisions Dear Brian: Transmitted herewith, please find eight (8) copies of a summary prepared by David E. Capen, Ph.D. Certified Wildlife Biologist, of his presentation made to the South Burlington Development Review Board on November 16, 2004. Also attached is a copy of the Power Point slide show that was presented as well. If you need any additional copies, please let me know. Sin erely, te�& J�a6:� Michelle Holgate Project Manager cc: David Marshall; CEA David Capen 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com Summary of Presentation' to South Burlington Development Review Board David E. Capen, Ph.D, Certified Wildlife Biologist 16 November 2004 Field Surveys I conducted an assessment of wildlife habitat on the South Village site from January through July 2002 and have made follow-up visits to the site on several occasions since that time. The South Village property is distinguished by a diversity of habitat types: five different forest communities, emergent wetlands, pastures that have reverted to brush, grasslands, and a large forested wetland. The quality of most of these sites has been diminished by years of agricultural activities and the spread of numerous exotic invasive species. A field assistant (Tina Scharf, M.S. Wildlife Biology) and I made 18 visits to the site in 2002 to survey mammals and birds. I returned to the site several more times in 2003 and 2004. When searching for tracks of animals in snow, we walked transect lines as a means of assuring that we surveyed the entire site. Occasionally, we left transect lines to follow tracks of a specific animal. Highlights of our field surveys follow: • Coyotes were quite common on the property, detected on 11 of 13 visits. We noted as many as 3 individuals on a single visit. • Red foxes were just as abundant as coyotes, detected on 12 of 13 visits. • White-tailed deer were common in the spring, seen on 7 of 13 visits. We did not see deer tracks regularly during winter months. • Bobcats were detected on only 1 of 13 visits, but there were 2 individual animals. We saw moose tracks on one visit, but bark scars on small trees indicated earlier visits by moose. • Eight other species of small and mid -sized mammals were found on the South Village site. Some other mammals predictably occur in these habitats, but were not detected on our surveys: raccoons, woodchucks, red -backed voles, other species of shrews, and bats. • Twenty-four species of birds were found in the forest or forest edge • Seven species of birds were found in the grasslands, and 8 species were detected that prefer shrubby habitat. ' These are edited notes from a PowerPoint presentation. • Nine more species of birds were found in the wetland habitat types. One of the wetland bird species was the Northern Harrier, a Species of Special Concern in Vermont. This hawk nests on the ground in or near wetlands and hunts for prey —usually mice —in wetlands and nearby grasslands. Harriers apparently have nested on the South Village site for the past several years since farming practices ceased. Harriers are sensitive to disturbance, thus this species might not persist as a nesting bird with the planned development. We did not search for amphibians, but at least a dozen species should be found in the mix of forest, swamp, and wetland. Species of Interest Other consultants have focused on four species that might be significantly impacted by proposed development. I'll address each of these below. The American woodcock is a popular game species that conducts courtship displays in the spring, and nests on the ground, usually near forest edges. This species prefers a mix of open fields and shrubs for its evening courtship displays. I found woodcock displaying during 2003 and 2004. Its preferred habitat will be altered by planned development. The upland sandpiper is a Threatened species in Vermont. This species was seen on this property years ago when the fields were still pastured and cut for hay. The habitat is no longer suitable for Upland Sandpipers, however. If anything, the planned restoration of grasslands in South Village will improve chances of this species being found here. A biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department mentioned that the South Village site would be good habitat for the Endangered New England cottontail. However, this species may be extinct in Vermont. Other consultants trapped cottontails on this site in 2004 and had samples analyzed genetically. The results confirmed that the animals were Eastern Cottontails. The regional authority on this species, Dr. John Litvaitis, advised me that the New England cottontail almost certainly won't be found any longer in northern Vermont. The bobcat is still a game animal in Vermont, and trapping is allowed during a prescribed season. Nevertheless, this species attracts more attention than other mammalian predators. Bobcats have been detected on several occasions on the South Village site, but not consistently enough to suggest that they have den sites on the property or nearby. 2 The closest known den site for bobcats is on the NE corner of Shelburne Pond. The average size of a home range for bobcats, would support the conclusion that the Shelburne Pond animals likely spend most of their time in the relatively undeveloped parts of Shelburne and South Burlington north and east of the pond, rather than crossing Dorset Street and intermingling with denser patterns of development. An overlay of property boundaries and roads emphasizes the contrasting housing densities on opposite sides of Dorset Street, and a closer look at the South Village site from an aerial photograph demonstrates the existing development that borders the property to the south and east. Wildlife Corridors Others have suggested that wildlife corridors exist on and near the site of South Village. In fact, consultants who prepared a 1990 plan for the Southeast Quadrant identified portions of the South Village site as corridors for wildlife. A wildlife corridor should be defined as linear habitat that provides a link between other areas of preferred habitat. My analysis of this region indicates that there are no distinctive sources of wildlife habitat either north of south of South Village, thus no justification for alleged corridors. This is not to say, however, that some of the properties adjoining South Village do not contribute to the diversity of wildlife in this area. A closer look at the site illustrates the number of developed lots and busy roads that separate the South Village area from the relatively undeveloped areas east of Dorset Street. maintain that the large block of forest and the "Great Swamp" on the northeast portion of the South Village site, and the wetland areas on the southeast part of the property represent the most significant opportunities for animal movement in this region, and that these are the most important habitat connections to maintain. In summary, then, I make the following points about the proposed South Village development and wildlife habitat: (1) 75% of the acreage will remain open space; (2) emergent wetlands will be protected and restored; (3) residual grasslands will be restored to native species; (4) abundant edge habitats will encourage a diversity of wildlife; (5) young forests will be diversified with native species; (6) the Great Swamp will be protected; and (7) habitat connectivity to the large block of adjacent forest will be maintained. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 1 Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 •Stammal track surveys •Jan-Jaty2002 •13 visits, 11 on fresh snow �`-- -Bird surveys t- -Jan-June 2002 •5 visits -_4 l •Addltlonal site vidis, April 1001, June 2003. Dec 2063, April 2004 •4 I conducted an assessment of wildlife habitat on the South Village site from January through July 2002 and on several occasions since that time. The South Village site is distinguished by a diversity of habitat types: five different forest communities, emergent wetlands, pastures that have reverted to brush, grasslands, and a large forested wetland. The quality of most of these sites has been diminished by years of agricultural activities and the spread of numerous exotic invasive species. A field assistant (Tina Scharf, M.S. Wildlife Biology) and I made 18 visits to the site in 2002 to survey mammals and birds. I returned to the site several more times in 2003 and 2004. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 2 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 When searching for tracks of animals in snow, we walked transect lines as a means of assuring that we surveyed the entire site. Occasionally, we left transects to follow tracks of a specific animal. Coyotes were quite common on the property, detected on 11 of 13 visits. We noted as many as 3 individuals on a single visit. Red foxes were just as abundant as coyotes, detected on 12 of 13 visits. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 3 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Oght olh, Mp d. of mammals , Esaw rwt wlr - RM M-4 (?q M-1 - - Fara�rhon k ,...dam.. VVIft...k._. .f..Wd�. t s yr. White-tailed deer were common in the spring, seen on 7 of 13 visits. We did not see deer tracks regularly during winter months. Bobcats were detected on only 1 of 13 visits, but there were 2 individual animals. We saw moose tracks on one visit, but bark scaring on some small trees indicated earlier visits by moose. Eight other species of small and mid -sized mammals were found on the South Village site. Some others certainly occur in these habitats, but were not detected on our surveys: raccoons, woodchucks, red -backed voles, other species of shrews, and bats. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 4 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide 12 9r6 a(ORiafRlf(ar<q rARt ZA-P Nrd card D,wk,Amrrkm 4rgml. Mrd Br ,wURrwte,,DrtrM wrrk pOeON �ve4tAn.9t+-<nqN nlrui4r. sM bmir. otmbtr4 [m wm6yewR.nmrl�ern flkkrc.ru vrD qrd DummkrpD lyd, ,.. Dxv hY. Dru-egpta coin , mnM mmme. .et.-sreaara Dsrt.A krsv ne4a..eet7 .om mrg4,xn.n frn b, DreLaara c.nm, mskwrt rwrlt. span mwbeR Y4Y 9v rorRepxnnw, nt,m,a gxrrvw, xro�ervMdeG <owD44 Fa me,0owr M. kR .areDmDbrk etra..a m.r._R ytat.: Ytbw w,rDtrr, rmnvb,elbwgrrow,Drown mrxgar, rogrrm crtab,l grpprK,p,nm. is nn tb®W.«du mwrR, aeE Amnk�wooacrck wurw rycynrt, rta-.+pe ebcken4.m�r �+ntr. rrtt .w.anr...r..ry ,p.rmw, m,mr4 c�a. gmrt. agwncn Dlgern, ma mnrem ert.rr. Twenty-four species of birds were found in the forest or forest edge Seven species of birds were found in the grasslands, and 8 species were detected that prefer shrubby habitat. Nine more species of birds were found in the wetland habitat types. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 5 Slide 13 Slide 14 Slide 15 Amphlliam: a. akRt.a —171 ra ,prM -p— kn. Yarewma nug �,mµ prry.r, �n�n�y, Am.tko rn4ovlEem lwulON S.l.n.ndn,.utrm a....yp ,rtRma, +.bnnmdn,.p.nM .I.n.ider� 64ir .•M .I.mdn, Wfaa-bM.W11eMI R Bpeda dlWeml: •American wvodcod . - ��. •Upland sandp4per •IVew England coltontatl •Bobcat - One of the wetland species was the Northern Harrier, a Species of Special Concern in Vermont. This hawk species nests on the ground in or near wetlands and hunts for prey —usually mice —in wetlands and nearby grasslands. Harriers apparently have nested on the South Village site for the past several years since farming practices ceased. Harriers are sensitive to disturbance, thus this species might not persist as a nesting bird with the planned development. We did not search for amphibians, but at least a dozen species should be found in the mix of forest, swamp, and wetland. Four species have been mentioned by other consultants as ones that might be impacted by development. I'll address each of these below. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 6 Slide 16 Slide 17 Slide 18 _: I ,r New F.nglawf Cotlodlall Dr. J"m IJfrfWi Reel aftfR, w m .ff Y NM F gt.& -",- Yew, I Me —0y Me —q. rw I week Y Ikeoep.Y vary. Q dyern N—bp••—.�Wk ldr Y Vn�wr.M br.Y pw-dy ftY .w be ftr verve . Y fte C--.hM The American woodcock is a popular game species that conducts courtship displays in the spring, and nests on the ground, usually near forest edges. This species prefers a mix of open fields and shrubs for its evening courtship displays. I found woodcock displaying during 2003 and 2004. Its preferred habitat will be altered by planned development. The upland sandpiper is a Threatened species in Vermont. This species was seen on this property years ago when the fields were still pastured and cut for hay. The habitat is no longer suitable for Upland Sandpipers, however. If anything, the planned restoration of grasslands in South Village will improve chances of this species being found here. A biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department mentioned that the South Village site would be good habitat for the Endangered New England Cottontail. However, this species may be extinct in Vermont. Other consultants trapped cottontails on this site in 2004 and had samples analyzed genetically. The results confirmed that the animals were Eastern Cottontails. The regional authority on this species, Dr. John Litvaitis, advised me that the New England cottontail almost certainly won't be found any longer in northern Vermont. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 7 Slide 19 Slide 20 Slide 21 The bobcat is still a game animal in Vermont, and trapping is allowed during a prescribed season. Nevertheless, this species attracts more attention than other mammalian predators. Bobcats have been detected on several occasions on the South Village site, but not consistently enough to suggest that they have den sites on the property or nearby. The closest known den site for bobcats is on the NE corner of Shelburne Pond. I have shown on this aerial photograph the average size of a home range for bobcats, suggesting that the Shelburne Pond animals likely spend most of their time in the relatively undeveloped parts of Shelburne and South Burlington north and east of the pond, rather than crossing Dorset Street and intermingling with denser patterns of development. An overlay of property boundaries and roads emphasizes the contrasting housing densities on opposite sides of Dorset Street. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 8 Slide 22 Slide 23 Slide 24 A closer look at South Village from an aerial photograph demonstrates the existing development that borders the site to the south and east. Others have suggested that wildlife corridors exist on and near the site of South Village. Wildlife corridors should be defined as linear habitat that provides a link between other areas of preferred habitat. My analysis of this region indicates that there are no distinctive sources of wildlife habitat either north of south of South Village, thus no justification for alleged corridors. This is not to say, however, that some of the properties adjoining South Village do not contribute to the diversity of wildlife in this area. A closer look at the site illustrates the number of developed lots and busy roads that separate the South Village area from the relatively undeveloped areas east of Dorset Street. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 9 Slide 25 Slide 26 I maintain that the large block of forest and the "Great Swamp" on the northeast portion of the South Village site, and the wetland areas on the southeast part of the property represent the most significant opportunities for animal movement in this region, and that these are the most important habitat connections to maintain. In summary, then, I make the following points about the proposed South Village development and wildlife habitat: (1) 75% of the acreage will remain open space; (2) emergent wetlands will be protected and restored; (3) residual grasslands will be restored to native species; (4) abundant edge habitats will encourage a diversity of wildlife; (5) young forests will be diversified with native species; (6) the Great Swamp will be protected; and (7) habitat connectivity to the large block of adjacent forest will be maintained. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 84:6-4101 August 18, 2004 Donald & Lynn Cummings 1811 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 of South Village Communities, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 334 residential unit traditional neighborhood design to include single family, two (2) family, and multi -family dwellings, 2) a 100 student educational facility, and 3) a community building to support a 35 acre farm, 1840 Spear Street. 2. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 of South Village Communities, Ll-C for a planned unit development of Phase I consisting of 150 residential units and a 100 student educational facility, of a 334 residential unit project, 1840 Spear Street. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board August 18, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Dean Pierce, Planner Town of Shelburne P.O. Box 88 Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & a ONESG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERIVIONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Jane Carol Primm Gayle Schramm 1971 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Dan Wetzel 183 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, "-�*q �C71)y�k Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY Or SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, `TERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 F'AIX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Donald & Lisa Angwin 73 Bower Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTO T DEPARTMENT OF PLA1NNUI1G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Bhagwat & Gina Mangla 195 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, I� Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 James & Paula Carroll 155 Chesapeak Drive Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, i� c Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLITvGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Ram Bhatia 7 i Floral Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, C � Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIL 1G & ZGNIFNG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BUr LINGTON, VERMONT 05408 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Dirk & Deborah Marek 193 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy Mc onough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT' OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 James & Christina Robert 79 Bower Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BU LI1aTGTON DE,PAIRTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERVONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. c/o MBL Associates 25 Pinecrest Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, <-� �QmqL Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BU LINGTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Curt Moody uVestergood Mark 1344 N. Windomere Dallas, TX 75208 Dear Property Owner. - Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, &�� qj L� Wqk Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. DEPARTMET�TT Om iPLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Jared & Karen Larrow 77 Bower Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNU14G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Kirk & Nancy Weed 190 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. DEPARTMENT GF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Philip & Darcy Carter 187 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough 9L Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Anthony & Nancy Bianchi 29 Floral Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PI ANNL\IG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERIMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 John & Ritika Paul 191 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING ON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET ,SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Mark & Deborah Fay 188 vatkil Dr ivc South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLI GTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 EORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINCTTOh1, VERIVIONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Michael Bouvier 31 Floral Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, � 14 Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto 33 Floral Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DElPARTMEPdT 0j iPg.AINNING & ZOINE'tG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLLi GTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Timothy & Jennifer Owens 197 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, fiklq �(�)7 Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SO-,'IJTh BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERT WO T 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Harlan & Joan Sylvester 51 South Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Property Owner. - Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, "'� N N���� C' Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNE�1G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Barbara Lande 865 Spear Sleet South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMETtT OF fPLl41°f 1�TR & ZOI ILNG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH EURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SWATH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 William & Ayse Floyd 1813 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, cl �� Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SO-' TH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF F'LAi T ING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Janet Farina 1807 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Brian & Carolyn Terhune 35 Floral Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, -� L Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMEINT GF PLAMNI TG & ZONING ING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERVIONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Shane & Holly Deridder 192 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Lucien & Jane Demers P.O. Box 359 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITE' OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANN 4G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 4012 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, r Betsy M Donough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLI TGTON DEPA R`I A/tE1 dT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTOP4, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Harry & Patricia Davison 1827 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4I06 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Harold & Eleanor Benson 1803 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING` O DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Matthew & Beverly Broomhall 37 Floral Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BliRLINGTON, VERMONP 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLI GTON DEPARTMENT DOE PLANNING & ZONi NG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINCTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Carolyn Long 1720 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, YA.e Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOT-TTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING & ZONfNaG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802') 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Property Owner. - Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, J�� )awl( Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTOl DEPARTMENT OF PLA1",T U,,fG & ZONE'TG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 William Reed 1967 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, "�4 v Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 George & Shelly Vinal 1845 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, ?$s (�dywqk" Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BUURLINGTON DEPARTMENT Off' :PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Stuart & Helen Hall 1815 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy Mc onough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOU"'L"H BURLING` ON DEPARTIVIENT OF PLAI'-IN <NG aka ZONEITG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Mary Pappas 1809 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, `IERMONP 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 William Stanley 306 South Beach Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, 3ow1h) Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BUR, LINGTON DEPAR,TMENT GEP'I ANNING & Zi V-1-EllN1G 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 18, 2004 Pasquale & Deborah Distefano 75 Bower Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, �jw' qc�)Ot. L "-) Betsy Mcbonough Administrative Assistant Encl. State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>Voice 1-800-253-0195 Voice>TDD AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION 103 South Main Street Building 10 North Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 FAX 802-241-3287 TEL 802-241-3770 January 27, 2004 Art Gilman and Errol Briggs William D. Countryman Associates RD 1, Box 999 Northfield, Vermont 05663 Re: South Village, Spear Street, South Burlington, Wetlands Project #2001-274 Dear Art and Errol: Thank you for meeting with us this month to discuss the project your client (Retrovest) is in the process of planning for the above captioned property. While we have not seen any proposed plans for the project, we understand that your client will be presenting a concept plan to the City of South Burlington shortly. At this time we are providing you with some general comments that we hope can be incorporated into the concept plan. We have been aware of this project for a few years. In 2001, representatives from several different programs in the Agency (me and John Austin, Jodi Shippee of the Natural Heritage Program, and Kim Greenwood, Erosion Control Specialist) had the opportunity to visit this site with Retrovest representatives. Retrovest was interested in acquiring the property at that time, and was soliciting comments on natural resource issues at the site. After the site visit, several Agency staff met to discuss the parcel. These Agency staff made the following recommendations: 1) that any development on the parcel be clustered along the front of the property, so that the two large wetland complexes on the site could be retained and protected from development and 2) the plan be designed to avoid crossing either of these wetlands. The reasoning for these recommendations is described below. During our site visit we observed two large Class Two wetland complexes. One is in the center of the property and runs north -south (this will be referred to as the "center wetland") and the other is located along the eastern boundary of the site (the "eastern wetland"). Both of these wetlands are protected by the Vermont Wetland Rules. Please note that any activity in a Class Two wetland, or its associated 50-foot buffer zone, other than the allowed uses specified in Section 6.2 of the Vermont Wetland Rules, requires a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. According to Section 8.5 of the Vermont Wetland Rules, a CUD can only be issued if it is determined that the use will have no undue adverse impact on protected functions, unless such impacts are mitigated. Mitigation measures include avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Both of these wetlands are significant for several functions and values including wildlife habitat, water quality protection, flood storage, and erosion control. The eastern wetland is Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury Art Gilman and Errol Briggs Page 2 also significant for the hydrophytic vegetation function. These wetlands are both located in an impaired watershed. Therefore, maintenance of the existing water quality function of these wetlands is critical, both during and after construction. The project should be planned to avoid impacts to these valuable wetland resources, and to maintain the integrity of the buffer zones. The best erosion prevention occurs during the planning stages of a project. This includes avoiding areas that are likely to erode, providing adequate riparian (that is, stream and wetland) buffers, and designing the project construction with the least amount of impact to water resources as possible. This also helps to maintain the hydrology of the site, an important consideration in not causing erosion problems as a result of altered water flows. It should be noted that this project will require authorization to discharge under the Construction General Permit 3-9001 (2003). Authorization under the general permit can not be granted until the CUD has been issued for wetland and wetland buffer impacts. Based on our meeting last week, we understand that your client is proposing an approximately 300-unit housing development on this property. We are concerned that the construction of a dense housing development will adversely impact the wetland -dependant wildlife that currently depend on the habitat associated with this site. Based on our observations and those of your representatives, these wetlands are important for waterfowl, wading birds, a myriad of songbirds, raptors including northern harriers, wetland -dependant furbearers such as mink and otter and other wildlife. Therefore, we recommend that the units be concentrated away from these wetlands. During the Act 250 review process we will recommend a 300-foot buffer zone for both the center and the eastern wetland for wildlife. This buffer distance has been applied to other development projects in Chittenden County that involved wetlands with significant wildlife functions and values. We continue to recommend that the housing be concentrated in the front of the site. It appears there is ample space for a residential development in this area. While there are Class Three wetlands all along the front of the site, in our opinion these wetlands do not support as many functions as the center and eastern Class Two wetlands. Again, we appreciate being contacted for comments early in your planning process. Please send us a copy of any concept plans as they emerge so we can give you feedback on them. If you have any questions regarding this letter, feel free to contact any of us. Sincerely, f en-r April J. Mouldeft John Austin Kim Greenwood District Wetlands Ecologist District Wildlife Biologist Erosion Control Specialist cc: 4,Tulie Beth Hoover, City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Peter Keibel, Act 250 Coordinator Mike Adams, Corps of Engineers Michelle Holgate, Retrovest TND TND ENGINEERING TRAFFIC, TND, TRANSPORTATION AND CONSULTING P.O. BOX 388. OSSIPEE. NH 03864 603,539.5999; FAX 539.7912 w tndengineering.com November 13, 2002 Via Overnight Delivery Julie -Beth Hoover, Planning Director City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Julie -Beth: As I touched on briefly during our last meeting, I have now detailed a series of proposed street cross sections, approximately a dozen in all, and they are enclosed in this package of materials. I have also computed the likely number of trips that will be generated by South Village and then assigned those trips to the street network. Not surprisingly, and due to the interconnected nature of the street network, quite a number of the streets are extremely low volume (under 100 average daily trips) and I have shown those streets on one of the enclosed diagrams. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently published its "Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT Less Than or Equal To 400)". While this threshold of 400 ADT is somewhat arbitrary, I found it useful when looking at the street network in South Village and have also prepared a diagram showing which of the streets my calculations show will have volumes below this threshold. As you will see, using this threshold nearly all of the streets in South Village will be under 400 ADT. One diagram, along with the street sections themselves, will likely generate the most discussion Monday morning, this is the "Proposed Street Assignments" that I have also marked "Preliminary". Now that we have some more specific numbers, I hope that we can settle upon final cross sectional details and look forward to discussing this with you and Mr. Hoar and other members of city staff next week. This particular document we are still reviewing internally; it is literally a work in progress. I have also enclosed a diagram that shows the proposed public street configuration through the project and I believe that is in accordance with our last discussion. In any event, should this need to change, we now have a base to work from. I should point out that I did include the Metropolitan Planning Organization's calculations of through trips in these figures even though I believe these projections may be somewhat high. David Roberts and I have yet to have a chance to discuss PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • TRAFFIC CALMING• ZONING • STREETS • ENGINEERING Planning for the Future with the Technology of Today and the Lessons of the Past Julie Beth -Hoover November 13, 2002 Page 2 of 2 these concerns that I raised in my recent letter to him, so his figures are in exactly as he calculated them (15 mph peak). I look forward to seeing you next week and remain Si ly Your Merin Chester' ick" Che Iman, P.E. Principal Pc: Ken Braverman The Retrovest Companies PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • TRAFFIC CALMING• ZONING • STREETS • ENGINEERING Planning for the Future with the Technology of Today and the Lessons of the Past South Burlington Street Departineilt 57,5 lac RSE'r STREE"' TEL: (&u) Eim'-zwi Memorandum TO: Design Review Board FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director DATE: November 21, 2002 CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator RE: South Village Street Widths After a number of meetings with the developer and his team we have reached agreement on changes to pavement widths for their development. The following deals with street width only, and not for waivers on other things such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those that are to remain public. I would recommend that the board keep in mind that the lowest speed limit that can be legally posted in the state of Vermont is 25 mph. All the roads that are public are to be designed for this speed limit. I would also ask the board to keep in mind that it is a possibility that the city may own all the roads in this development some time in the future. It may be beneficial to have a traffic engineer hired by the city review any changes for which waivers are granted Changes to our rules that I have agreed to are as follows: • Right of Way widths are to be 60' for both Public and Private roads with one exception and that is the cross section labeled AL-26. • The cross section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer enters into agreements to keep the area designated as agricultural. • Paved road width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'. • Any area where there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the city has the ability to make changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permit. • All construction shall be to city specs with the exception of widths. • The other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, BV-66, ST-60Pa, ST-60, ST-60Pb and ST-60P • The sub -base for ST-60Pa is to be constructed for a 28' pavement width. All signage for this project is the responsibility of the developer and all stripping shall be of 3M Tape or Thermal Plastic. The developer shall provide fire hydrant flags. Post-W Fax Note 7671 1 Date # oges� To From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # _l — iZ, Fax # DescriptionDwellings AM pk Enter Exit PM • eak Enter Exit North Single Family 20 236 23 6 17 25 16 9 LUC 210 of Project Multi Family 16 137 12 2 10 16 10 6 LUC 230 11.6% Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUC 253 totals 36 373 35 8 27 41 26 15 Village Center Single Family 100 " 1,037 79 20 59 107 68 39 LUC 210 Multi Family 24 194 16 3 13 21 14 7 LUC 230 of Project 50.3% Apartments 32 326 19 3 16 36 24 12 LUC 220 Farmstand, 2 employees* 20 10 5 5 Est totals 156 1,577 114 26 88 174 111 63 South Single Family 57 618 49 12 37 65 42 23 LUC 210 of Project Multi Family 13 115 10 2 8 13 8 5 LUC 230 22.6% totals 70 733 59 14 45 78 50 28 Grove ApartmentsApartmentsl 48 422 27 4 23 45 30 15 LUC 220 of Project 15.5% Raw Trips Totals 310 3,105 235 52 183 338 217 121 Next Calculations- Person -Trips & Modal Splits sov DOV Transit Bike/Walk Opening 97% 1% 0% 1% 1.5% Buildout 92% 3% 0% 2% 3% "SOV"= Single Occupant Vehicle; "DOV"= Double (or more) Occupant Vehicle, calculated as 2 Adult Trips Vehicle Trips With The Above Modal Buildout Buildout 2857 216 48 168 311 200 111 Through Traffic as Calc by MPO 640 - - - 64 47 17 Totals 3497 216 48 168 375 247 128 * Farmstand will likely be predominantly pass -by trips South Village Trip Generation Analysis TND Engineering No Text 11 .............. -V TT I it �-, .�N-I V TTTT 7 L i J A 00 A -T V__ _� ��.� T T7 00 rs 77 South Villag Turning % @Allen (from MPO) TND Engineering Nov. 12, 2002 .t ! � 1 f r ;f i _ ,; S p of ADT Values Along connectors (Includes MPO Through E ��lrl lit A ff t 1 South Village Traffic (ADT) Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 12, 2002 r-7L. (1) 04 U LLI cn �t Ana LM CO 77 ` y en / Streets Under [,._....... , 100 ADT..• f ! 1 � t l LD i I 1 -`3 «� rt f f . �I t t f #j /r i ft f !( IF �.., _ - _.......,,.,, t { 'fir •\ ` INN O�C =... ..T ? \ +. ram. ter_ • .��•. r?.�..�+. � f '...i�� � `` • \ r South Village Traffic (ADT) Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 12, 2002 M (A STZTZEL, PACjE & FLI'TC:1• ER, P.C.I ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BAT ERY 5'1'R:TT P.O. BOX 1507 DUR)INGTON, VEI MON'r(}s,Ir}2-15e)r (8G2J GGG-25:,5 (Vt71C'[Vl'ul)} FAX (m) ajo-25S2 or hf10•91 I4 !'ACit R, PA(iG" (: MA1L(Irlkh?:>S1!t ,,:1RM5FF.t e)Ail ROW -.A, F. 1'I.i !'C'tLt(li Wltl'1 U'S E-4fAlL(ALA Pl110YW;L-tl %4 SII;T,C't)M) JOST.P11 S, Ivlcl.i fu1 N R!'I'I i4"4 fAX t`it:l.) 6 0.2.152 TLhlOV4Y M. i:USTAC:12 FACSIMILE TRANSMIT IAL SI IEE,'T Date, January 17, 2003 TO: Ray 13elair t,ex! 846-4101 RQ: IRctrovest Semler, Atmancl,t Lafferty A,MANIsA , V. LA Ft 14I'Y. l,I�tivnY•i:ft; AI;TtU,tV +� You should receive-5 _ Vagev(s), inclucling this cover- sjj� ,,t. 1f`yoLr ch',,......,,,-" w. not lvice;ve ,all th�, please mall (802)_!�9-2555N_�.._.____�._ ...__ .,......_.,.,.... _.... �..., . , MESSAGE Transmitted herewith is a ease relevant to the speul litnit issue;. Spccirtc;ttl;y, 1.711.11 considers it necessary, it may impusc a condition requiring the appiiC.1111 to l7o"A �,Jls lh 1t state the spee~c1 limit, evert though the police could noL enforce tht ipcal llrpii. ('n l if' You have any yttcstions, Th(-,nk you. rt SX,4i.Cor,11% t hie r iGs':�tt C is intatidca an!y for Lh; tt5C. or 0w ad9rv%hcv and nmy Corbin illrollitadoe dwt N prhV lq;,i., i and a wlWooLml, t1 you juvt !(t th,, intrr:i,d rC�ipicllt, ,You una hereby noritl0i thtt6 tiny &L;Qmits +11un of'thi; t:ntuniurlealitnl I:, r,Hutly I^.ndoiLi!c,l. It'ypu i^.:apt• wR: Cta,; l :ltim camriunicatinn in errpr. pI1:at;c: nobly US u)!Likrlta:Cly by w1cp horw (X�2-65D-2S5T). 'ri w,k yau. iOld 399�099HOS 'ON XV. Od 33HO,137d 30Vd 7MIIS WC' ! 1:£C 1�3 £OCR-L1-*f llal,:2ur'3 In re MINOR SUBDIVISION PLOT APPROVAL 4 88-340170R STAN1,14Y H(.?SIMSOIN, No. 90• 010. klirch If, 1991. Putibm for subdivision was made. The Superzur Court, Wirdsor County, Fll:;ui 1 loilYrc;,,� Nl{rl�ylray, J., ordered pemit to be issued. Nciglibor appealed, The Supreme Court, Johnson. J,, he 1d Ilya t: (1) proposed subdivision did not violate requircments rgirding lionogo oat public row,l; (2) proptm d subdivision slid not violate prohibition against "reserv�xl rstrips% and (3) conditicras ol'Ijc;rrr7it cli+l not render it vague and uncaflorceahlc. A CI inned. Wcst 11cadnotes f l� Zoning :xltci planning 3m-3'i1.5 4141,3..E 1..5 1Vle�st {-'iced C rses Proposal minor lot Subdivision did not violate municipal coning rgw1ations oven thotrZ;h only 201/i, of lot's wid1b would front on a read and a regLialion required at !cast 80% iiorr€<tgc; th rr was a nollv-,r regulation allowing creation of lets having no frontage it flicy liad rights.,ol'-w.,ty or cosvnic-Iris to a road and nithough under proposal access road would be locate] olr ic�t itself pl•oper,•,rl riot illcousistcnt with sclhctnc of Toning regulations, 121 %onbig and Planning O381.5 414h381 ,5 MQst.Qitccl C,,js Subdivision of minor lot, so as to provide for road contained on am lc>t, clici riot vietlatr 70.11ing prohibitions against "reserved strip"; new road %vould not be conlrollcci by t►.lry It�atclFr�4Atcr, erg 1CSlldrl'c Ci to fall under "reserved strip" prohibition, as all lots sorviced by atcw across rood vvcmid lr::vu rit;'rt5 vl= way over it. f31 ;sorting find Planrninh1111082.2 414082.2 Mot C itcd Cases ..ldclivery, htm Pdataid-A00558000000423C00024S17G808D6I 0L.C'I'6616l- 1&(icst-,;q•r��..f.�j1)11116 )3 20 'd 2992099202 'ON AU3 Od 3314O137I3 ROV8 79ZIIIS Wa 9I:£0 Ii A £OOZ-LI-NHf 3 of 5 Coluiitiolls illimsed upon subdivision permil (lid not reader it v,i ue and coll(il601l were ttnqualificd and deflnitc, particularly as to provisions of accet.,s ro;ld, and c1o11011iou4 Wcte cnforccablo as a violation ofpennit would be the sonic as violation of ot(iin.)llce it5011; **61 *200 Jahn J� [1�;tg, Jr. and C, Daniel. J.itit$Itcllson of ! ic:r°,w l ,(ln, C Z111C., Sccfdl ��: Norwich, for appellant. Robert 8,_.Bucklcy, ,ir. rind jpba j C.. C717C�.Q1.� eil`IiugliL'S, Miller & Candon, Norwich, 0-wallpc11<"5. Beforc *199 r1I,I,Rlr1, C.J., and C,IQSU*;, MORSF, alld .I0JiN,$QNk , JJ, *200 JC�HN,$_Qj';, Justice, Stanley and Bonnie Robinson, and Shepard Cclnstruction Co., Irc., applied In the Town of il.arlrford Planning Commission for atpprovatl of a four -lot 111111or wbdlvlslo111. I'lli loll'lclia Sacco) whose ill'op 'rly is bordered oil t1irce sides by one of the lots of the proposed subdivision, Contestlxi the a pplic:,idon. The application Was approved, and Sacco appeal-ei to the supcnor court, Afler a trial cia ll()vo pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 447?(a), tire* court ordcred tll:tt ri I11il10r stthdivislon pennit ht; to 111t' Robinsons and Shepard Constnletion Co., but with a nu111bur of conclitiotls llucoss3 ry lu i;ivc cd'r"ar.t to the Town of flarttord zoning and subdivision regulations. Sacco app4:t1cc1 to tilis ('0111 t, clailltilr►.; 11r,1.1 the trial court's issuance of tilt Permit was error because the proposed SUb{tivisi.oll tl) diet not m ugly with lot frontage requirements for the applicable zonhu district; b) viOltliW u prol0bition :}';::Iin31 "reserved strips," as defined by the Hartford Subdivision Regulations; and c) dial slot pl-tiviclr✓ �;a re access past Sacco's property to the proposed loots of the subdivision. We 111'firlal. The dispute centers aground the access drive to the proposed lots. 111c arccc9 't°`42 cllrive, is a 20.1'0ot- wide by 395-foot-long strip of land that begins at the end of Windsor Dive and curltinllcs in a ItorINAy direction past the westerly boundary ofSacco's property, Mor to rile protttil;e(j ktll>tlivi ia,ll, the access drive Was ttaeci exclusively by the Robinson and Sacco resialcllccs, it i$ llavc:d tc+ it 171w 1cct ocyond Sacco's garage, where it then continues to tllc fWliuson property as a gravel ro hl. (?:1,1;;r the 11ekV subdivision plan, tilt: drive will serve two Additional laousc.s, 'Jhc drive is intcMcd to I)k- p"'Itt of, olio of the proposed lots, l.ot 003, but sul)joct to rights of Way in the oilier proper ty ctwnt°1 s. 'I'lle tta ive is tilt only access to the proposal lots, and tlic dimensions of the stiij) of" land preeltulc any u c of the drive by Lot 003, [)] 201 Sacco's first cl,"M on appeal is drat proposcd Lot 003 clues oot Comply wills tl,c w•ialth requirements of I#artford's loping Regulation 4-7-2, because only INventy lcct of I,ot 0()3 ll�ts fkt+tal;c on a public road. Regulation 4-7-2 dcftncs lot mcasurcmunIs and requiie, t11, t vIgllty li�rck.11t ol'tlle required lot width for this residcntitll zone havc frontagc on a road, ill lilis case (ma ht111cdre:d (i O. 'I'llc Hartford zoning regulations also pernlit interior lots. with zero strict frontag,o, as l�tl};; :1,7 ti1u:•,: is .../dLlivery.htnil?dataid=AOU5580r)000042360002d517G3138D1i1.613C1 GGl(�7 i1< .Icst-.1911�°'.fc�rnl J/j, ",'03 20 'd 2992099202 'ON RUA Od 1191401.27A 9Obd 7921119 14d 9I : £0 INA £002-1.I-NUf 11ii,l, '. el ol`5 access from a street through private or "onsojoicni:0 rilectillt; ,,altt?li? a.;1f'waty requircments, Regplalion 4-3-3.1. The trial court correcily dcturmimA that Regulation •' 4- 7 cl(ws not Iogically apply to Lot 003. But for Jic access drive, which contitillus fi-oln 11a, end of c1 1)10he Iwt, d, Lot 003 is really an interior lot with access to the street by 1)r'ivatu ro,id. Tfint t,ot by its own strip of land, rather than a right-of=way or cascrrli 111, is 1101 irlc:cnlMiFtr,ot Nvit1.1 ill , C11�•ruc sri' Hartford zoning regulations. [21 Sacco rurthcr contcrcls that the access drive is an kinlawCul "rescrvcd ondcr § 5• .-13 uFflic llarlrm.l Subdivision itcbuladons. The resorvW- strip provision,;tales; ,No plivaatcly owi;nal rig;tic.rvl:d,l strip, except Oil opon space areas shall be }emitted which cocnti ols jccc;cs to ally p,n t nC tllu subdivision or to any other parcel or land from any Mrcct...." C asc law in ull( lbu jtli'is(licflo ll indicates that so-callod "resmcd striils" typically ll.rvc boon narrow strips of 1, nd, iz,,,c o cd i'ior n illo major parccl granted, with the object of iirnilffig ill;; accrs:ibility of tiro pare1•1. tilisc.2c1551 _i94,N,Y.S.2 753, 7U_(Strp.C.:t l!1S'J); W�rrs�(i v, f'(:�a,rrrrtu. Inc., ]Ss- N.l�,ti.'!d (,F,G, 689 CSiIp.C't-19SC). That i:i the opposite of tilt case at 11,h.r, Since ;11 lo(s will have l it lit".i d'JI^`b`u1y dyvc r tllc access drive owned by Lot 003, Lot 003 cannot bo S--Od to control ucccos, 'file tc>w1l Nul�.clivi,iu;l regulations expressly permit ndilor subdivisions, wlliclt they define ill portilwilt palt iis, ll {rim; 1117rontage on an existing pul)lic sttl' et or access to tiacft strait by I. Aj,,;dn, ih,1t Lot 003 will zetually own the right- of -way, which it will use 1Ioitg Willi oibcrs, c101.s not but tiro subdivision of this property. [3,1 Finally, Sacco contends that the court's judgment is rendered vtaici by tho incluskin in lhu suildivision permit of conditions *202 that, she irgues, are v.1guo rlrH] UnCl1rbi'coah1Q. W1, c,d mom. agree. The trial court was authoiixcd to issue a pen;tit with corldilions. Stu hl,r�t'_!:-!side:, ,1.'+(r Vt. 242, 24G, 388 A.2c{ 4 , 42S (127M ("It is lire duty of t11e couti irr a do llovo llca?.rinb to sl)ccily ill its ardor ail the touts and conditions thcrcof."). The purpose of the coliditiolls itt1110sc`dl wits- to (xtirliili'rl; tilt: pl•otlosm1 project, in all material respects, with the iute►1t and spirit or &l o. Town cif' llat•,(t,rci Subdivision Regulations, which are intended to assure the comfort. convcnieod;e.. s;tli:ty, 1,:�<�ltll Wild welfare of it s residents, § 5-1-1. The conditions are not Va.67UC; they are ullqualilied and dctlnitc. 1'I1t1 k ;t1iiMil,,S flic., a?+:,x,:,rc d rivn mt-juire the permit holder to improve and widen the road, post a sign sltltilro a 10 1111111 sl"w'Od 101•i,it, post a warning regardinS children and pedestdons, and remove snow i11 whit:•, to rnslintt,in rcrar;1 li,r two cars to pass. The conditions arc, moreover, cnrorceablc. A violation ora coudidon of;a subdivision permit 'v ould ; 'm a violation of the zoning ordinance itself. **63.Ktalc?k..v, /,nrlrrtsr11c r•rrrn, 1(r!, r�J'l3rtstnl '('r�ti�;i4Trirr, ! 128 I'a.{;.,01111W. 457,_!U762, 563 A..2d 97S, �$0_(1959) (violation or a rotlsliiion Ol" i+ s}�cri;rl rt"c permit was the cgtlivalent ora violation oft110 x,clniu` orclirtakalcc ; see In ry � �okor, , "2, -.., c ��k 15(a ti t. 1 W A.:7d 136L 3G7,(1r39i) (llooluy, J,, dissenting). llrldtir 2 1!..,rl.. §§ q 44 and 4,145, the Jl'iitrnL! 1 administrator is authorized to bring tang appropriate aclion to restrain, provc•rrt, correct or :iblo1w ;r.ry # osc or conduct t}rat violates t1le zoning ordinartccs or to itnposc' G11c`s rhr Much vidll:r%ierlt�, ll" tltw administrator fails to act, intcrosted persons may appeal to the beard or aldjusituclit undoi, 2.1, V, ;.A. 5 j 4472(a), ..Idol'rvcly.11trlrl?dat«id-t1AGOS5SOUpUQ0423600024517G8148D(ipfil3C:".I 6610741 I/16/0.3 t0 'd c556"099208 ON Kd3 Od 83HO13IJ TM 13Z.I11S Wd 61c£0 IE2 £008—LI—Wf 1IsI.!,, 5 of s Appellant cx rmcd particLijar C()tjGC171 about th o cantlili()ra rcqu,irillg! pominp, 01 :a l(l aalii, :�tl•I���al; I speed limit, citallonpin th© trial court's Conclusion ili at the condition woum ui.,kc t,lrc inW cororcoment officials will have no au(bority to enforce a spced limit on ;a pi-INime roy..1. Wc� �lr;�t lxrta�it conditions cannot insure against mireaa.�onable use by po°t orrs other 11l,!r tlr.; ar.:j•trjit holdors. Private access roads arc undeniably unsafe if lravcrscxl st, unr,°;kq►mnible SixCils, ,^racl law cati'orcement officers, it is true, have no aulhoi•.ity 10 wlf()T %- pOstc41 s,jxv 1 liit;ltti on tsuclr tr,a„ �1 . litrt appellant's art_4tuMtnt, *203 carriW to its logical cooclusiorr, would prtliibit priv'!o "Coo'..' lxmds altofcthcr. We do not believo that ,such a result is vvaa'r'ant�.cl. 591 AIM 61, I$r Vt. 199 "ND OF I)OC:UMEN l r'c9c]ivory,html?dataid—l100a5; 0pQOQ0423fit�0024S17fa813�Dtr fal3C'r�t;1G7.fl� do t=.at;,.£!'cP�rta 1/16M 90 'j 2992099202 ON YUA 0a N3H01.31d 3OUA '1MUS 9O2:£0 Ib3 £002-Li-Ndf I , emorandum TO: Desigyn Board FROM: Briace --K.- Hear, Puick IYorks Director DAII E: November 21, 2002 CC: Ray Betair, Zoning Administrator RE: Sout'a Village Street%7idths After a IliffnL'er of meevirqgs Tvith the developer and his team we have reached.agreement on changes to Pavement widths for their delYCIOPMent The following deals with 1,reet width only, and not for waivers on other thing such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those thatare to remain -.mblic. I would recommend that the board keep in mind that the lowest spf-,,-.d limit that can be legally posted in the state of Vermont is 25 mph. AH the roads that are public are to be designed for Alai s Ypeed limit. I would also ask the boardito keep in mind th9t it is a possibility that dieCitJ7 May )wag wi ail !he Toads in this development some time it, the fixture. It _mny be beneficial to itavc a trag-C MIgInC.CT nffCrP.7,1 the city review any changes for which waivers are granted. Chang ,es to our awes that I have agreed to are as follows: %Iight of Way widths are to the 60' for both Plfbfic'md "Private roads wwth one exception and that is the cross section labeled AL-26. The cross section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer -nleis into agreements to keep the area designated as agriculvwzl. Raved road width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'. Any areawhere there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the city has the ability 'z Timize changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permit. --ill construction shall be to city specs with the exiception of widths. The other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, SV-66, ST-60Pa, ST-60, ST-60b and ST-60P The suic-base far ST-60a is tobe constructed for a 28' pavement width. gig aiglL'ge fog- this Prwjact is ihe i`aspznnsibiliey of -cite ;2,tvtIupernndmj s ;p_HiT Y 'File--mal Plastic. The developer diail provide fire hydrant flags. in ping sh2h 6 of v Tail: The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S SOUTH VILLAGE SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL Request for Waivers Revised November 21, 2002 As outlined in Section 25.15 of the Zoning Regulations, Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) are a planning instrument used to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and more efficient use of land". In an effort to achieve and exceed the planning goals set -forth for the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), we are seeking approval as a PRD and requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section 6.607. STREET DESIGN "It is a goal of this City to promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the open and special character of the Southeast Quadrant. The City will strive to encourage well planned residential development at densities and layouts that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas, and scenic views" Goal Statement, Chapter VIII 2001 Comprehensive Plan "Greater incentives to promote walking and bicycling can and should be implemented to minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation. In addition, pedestrians in an automobile -oriented environment must receive appropriate consideration. " 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII Streets form the fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists. The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision" design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria that are appropriate for 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The South village plan includes a variety of street types that have been designed and laid out to encourage a balance among all of the users of the street: motorist and non - motorists alike. Designed in accordance with the ITE Traditional Neighborhood Guidelines, each South Village street type is designed for specific use and conditions based upon projected vehicular and pedestrian use, desired parking conditions, environmental conditions, public emergency access, and streetscape character. These standards are designed to calm traffic and foster a safe pedestrian environment, while maximizing interconnectivity. In an effort to achieve the goal of minimizing environmental impacts while creating a walkable and pedestrian -friendly community, we are requesting the following waivers: 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A. Minimum right-of-way width for Public Collector from 80' to 60'. B. Minimum right-of-way width for Private Local street from 60' to: 26' (for Lanes and Alleys) C. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector from 32' to: 28' (2 lanes, parking on one side with bulbouts) 20' (2 lanes, no parking, and at wetland crossing) D. Minimum pavement width for Public Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' . (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 18' (Wetland Crossing - 2 lanes, no parking) E. Minimum pavement width for Private Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 20' (Private Rear Lane Access) F. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local street from 300' to 200'. G. Minimum radius of curves for Private Local street from 300' to 1201 . H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector from 150' to 50'. South Village - Request for Waivers 2 I. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 0'. J. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150'. K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Public Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum vertical (stopping)- sight distance from 200' to 150' for Public Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 125' for Private Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph). N. Minimum horizontal (corner) sighs distance for Public Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). O. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for a Public Street from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). P. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for a Private Street from 300 to 225' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph). 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, $hall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 0' setback on all roadways within South Village. South Village - Request for Waivers 3 Mix of Housing Types The type of residential development that has occurred in the Quadrant in the past 20 years has been primarily upper income housing. The City strongly encourages a variety of Housing types in the Quadrant, not only in terms of development densities and design, but in terms of affordability. A variety of development patterns and layouts as well as both single and multifamily units should be promoted. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Chapter VIII, Southeast Quadrant The South Village master plan is comprised of a series of linked neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will include a mix of housing types. A diversity of housing types enables citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within the community. Lot dimensions throughout South Village are appropriately scaled to individual housing types. The mix of village -scaled housing and lot types will include cottages, single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. In an effort to achieve the goal of providing a mix of housing types, we are requesting the following waivers: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements - The following waivers are requested for single, two family and multi family buildings to allow for a greater nix of housing on lots that have dimensional characteristics that correspond to individual village -scaled housing types. A) Minimum Lot Size B) Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets C) Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets D) Max. Building Coverage E) Max. Lot Coverage F) Front Yard Setback G) Rear Yard Setback H) Side Yard Setback I). Minimum Lot Size South Village - Request for Waivers 4 In addition to the previously described waivers, we are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for the following requests: Affordable Housing The City should explore creative zoning techniques and work with developers to encourage affordable housing in the Quadrant. The City should explore such zoning methods as density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing. It is important that affordable housing projects be done in a manner and design which promotes the preservation of open space, natural resources, and scenic views. 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VIII As part of the South Village municipal permitting process we are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for an Affordable Housing Density Bonus. Each dwelling unit received as a bonus (above the allowable density of approximately 264) will be allocated as an affordable unit. Affordable units shall be defined as per the Regional Plan. Article III Conservation and Open Space District Section 3.106 (Wetland and Buffers) Using a combination of compact neighborho©d design and ecological planning practices, there is an opportunity to protect and restore the poitions of the South Village site that contain the greatest ecological'value. The proposed ,plan includes several encroachments into the C.O. District. Class III Wetland and associated buffers will be eliminated and/or impacted in order to achieve the following design goals: Clustered Development: To facilitate the clustering of homes away. from identified wildlife habitat, Class II wetlands, and areas containing greater ecological value we are seeking waivers to eliminate and/or impact isolated Class III wetlands and associated buffers within the project's Village Center. Ecologically Designed Storm Water Management: Throughout the proposed South Village plan are encroachments into the C.O. District (Class III Wetlands and associated buffers) that support the development of a comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). We believe that this is consistent South Village - Request for Waivers 5 with the uses allowed within the C.O. District. Because of the importance of this stormwater management component to the overall design goals of the community as well as the permitting requirement for the project, there will be limited potential for traditional residential activities to adversely affect these areas. These areas will be actively managed and protected by easements precluding the need to further protect them through the modification of property lines. Approval for Lots with no Road Frontage 26.202 We are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for allowing up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane). This request will allow for more efficient land -use and the clustering of development. An alternative is to propose private streets built to public pavement standards but with reduced widths. South Village - Request for Waivers CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS FOR DRB 12/3/02 SOUTH VILLAGE SPEAR STREET 1. Streets should be designed for safe travel of no less than 25 miles per hour. This is by City ordinance and state sign posting law. 2. The Spear Street — Swift Street intersection should be improved to allow turns. The traffic signals should also be upgraded. 3. Street Right Of Way widths should not be waived. This is the time to acquire the proper width or it will be lost or very expensive to acquire in the future. 4. Power, telephone and T.V. underground lines should be located outside of the street Right Of Way in designated easements. That includes the large power transformer pads. 5. Street "G" should have a turnaround. 6. All concrete (5' wide" side walk should be constructed one foot from Street Right Of Way line. 7. Trees must NOT be planted on top of water and sewer mains. 8. This project will generate about 80,000 to 100,000 gallons of sewage per day. Although the newly upgraded Bartlett Bay sewage treatment plant has the capacity to treat this volume the sewer mains leading to the plant may be a problem. The main is a 12 inch built in the 1950's by a Fire District. The now dissolved Fire District boundary did not include the area of this project. All existing sewer mains this project will use must be monitored for at least a day to determine their capacity to handle an additional 80,000 to 100,000 gallons per day. 9. All streets should be public maintained by the City and built to City standards. I oppose giving this developer all the street construction waivers. It will result in a burden upon the City to provide adequate services. Private street maintenance will be forced upon the City based upon our past experience. B URAK.-;ANDERSON MELLONIPLC Gou:naellom at Lave Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Retrovest (the "Developer") Dear Mr. Dinklage: Michael L. Buraic' Gateway Square a 30 Main Street Jon Anderson Post Office Box 787 Thomas R. Mellon* Burlington, Vermont 05402.0787 Brian J. Sullivant Phone: 802 862.0500 Michael B. Rosenberg' Fax 802 862-8176 Jeremy I. Farkas e-mail: attomey@vdawl.com Jon T. Alexandert www.vdawl.com *Also admitted in New York tAlso admitted in Illinois *Also admitted in the District of Columbia #Also admitted in Massachusetts December 3, 2002 This firm represents Skip and Denise Vallee (the "Vallees") who own a home located just south of the western and middle portions of the proposed Retrovest project. We understand that the land on which Retrovest proposes to build (the "Downing -Calkins Land") is owned by the Downing -Calkins Trust or its successor. The Vallees have lived in their home for six years and they have hiked and skied frequently on the Downing -Calkins Land. The Vallees are keenly aware of the natural features — including wetlands and wildlife habitat - that characterize the environment of the central portion of the Downing -Calkins Land, which consists of two allegedly drier acres located within a large wetland (the "Central Area") as shown on Map C3 C submitted by the Developer (Attachment 1). Although housing development east and west of this wetland area may be appropriate, the Development Review Board should carefully consider any development that would intrude into the Central Area. We raise these issues now in sketch plan review so that the Developer will have ample opportunity to redesign its proposal in light of these and other serious concerns. Although our research is on -going, we call to your attention the following: Wetlands Delineation — We understand that the Developer delineated wetlands in August, 2001 after "very dry conditions [had] developed" on its property. The result is a claim that wetlands comprise a considerably smaller portion of the Downing -Calkins Land than had been indicated by any previous wetland delineation. A preliminary delineation by our consultant indicates that the Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 2 Bum MDERSON ,& MELLONIPLc Developer's delineation may understate the scope of the wetland areas on this property. (See Attachment 2 hereto.) Wetlands are most accurately delineated in the spring when plant species that characterize wetlands are most easily identified. We expect to make available to you the conclusion of the excellent wetlands consultant that we have employed, assuming that she is provided access to the property as necessary for her work.' You may also wish to seek the assistance of state and federal personnel familiar with wetlands delineation. 2. Wildlife Habitat - There is considerable reason to believe the Central Area is an important wildlife habitat. As the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources ("ANR") observes in a memorandum prepared to summarize its observations with respect to this project. (See Attachment 3 hereto): This area is very rich biologically and serves a myriad of wildlife functions. Grassland birds have been observed including bobolink. Historical site for threatened upland sandpiper, but recent observations have not shown any of this species. Not sure of the adequacy of the survey by Briggs [the Developer's consultant]. Also, may be good New England cottontail habitat which could be an issue. Also, likely nesting habitat for woodcock. Observed a deer. Good habitat for raptors including potential habitat for northern barriers. Again, the Developer's studies appear to understate the scope of this challenge to the project. We offer the assistance of a consultant that we have employed to consider this issue and ask that he be provided access to the property as necessary for his work. 3. Access Roads — To access the Central Area, the Developer proposes using two roads to cross the wetlands that ring the Central Area. Without these crossings, the allegedly drier portion of the Central Area is inaccessible. Although South Burlington may wish to require the Developer to reserve a right-of-way for an eventual road (to be constructed at a point when South Burlington is as densely settled as a major city), it is extremely doubtful that Retrovest will be able to construct a through road anytime soon. We are working to flesh out the wildlife ' Retrovest has denied access to the Downing -Calkins Land to experts employed by the Vallees except on terms unprecedented to my knowledge in Vermont. We do not understand what environmental issues Retrovest seeks to shield from discovery and we have been trying to negotiate access for our consultants so that all regulatory authorities will have the best possible information on which to base their decisions. Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South -Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 3 BURAK ANDERSON ; MELLONI issues associated with this proposed road construction. Nevertheless, Attachment 3 hereto, a memorandum by ANR, describes the problem as follows: So. Burlington expects to require a through road that would bisect the property and wetlands. This would be a huge impact to the wildlife functions of this habitat. Wetlands deserve wide buffers and permanent conservation, but buffer may prove difficult since much of the area around the open sedge wetlands is also open meadow. Not much for visual or auditory buffers. A road bisecting the property would seem unacceptable based on our current level of understanding of the wildlife values of the site. High density housing would also not be compatible with this site. Too many people would create as great an impact on these wetlands as physical alteration. The wetlands challenge may be described as follows: Under federal wetlands rules, a permit to encroach upon wetlands will only be issued if the disturbances ... are "avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable." Attachment 4, p. 10. Even extreme remedies, such as greater reliance on public transportation to avoid the need for a new road that disturbs wetlands, must be unavailable. See Attachments 5 and 6. State and local wetlands rules are of similar effect. See SBZR § 3.204. 4. Residential Density — We would ask the City of South Burlington to carefully consider the maximum legal housing density allowed for the parcel. As we understand zoning provisions applicable to the SEQ District, the maximum density is no more than 1.2 residential units per acre. We would ask you to carefully ascertain the area of land to which this limit would be applied. We believe such area excludes land in Shelburne and land developed for other purposes including, for example, transmission lines owned by VELCO, the Developer's proposed community center, etc. Even if the land area to which this .limit would be applied is as large as is claimed by the Developer (222 acres in South Burlington), the maximum residential density would be 265 housing units rather than the more than 300 units depicted by the Developer's plans. Additionally, we see no reason to relax this legal standard to enable maximum density on the Downing -Calkins Land. If anything, the allowable density should be decreased in light of the environmental characteristics of the property. As shown by the attached testimony submitted on behalf of the Downing -Calkins Trust (Attachment 7), the Developer proposes to more than triple the number of Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3; 2002 Page 4 BURAK .ANDERSON & MELLONIPLc units the Downing -Calkins Trust believed [only eight years ago] was appropriate to build on its property. As the following exchange demonstrates, the engineer for the Downing -Calkins Trust was "astounded" by the notion that even as many as 244 units would be allowed on the Trust property: 9.Q Why were you surprised or "astounded", by the allowable density on the Trust property? 9.A The zoning regulations for the City of South Burlington indicate that the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District is to encourage open space preservation, scenic views, natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, and the open character of the area. It was immediately obvious to me that the high allowable density was in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of formation of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. When I questioned Mr. Weith on the point he indicated that the Village at Dorset Park was used as a model for the 4 unit per acre allowable density. He went on to explain that the Dorset Park development was a Planned Unit Development that involved clustering of homes to maximize open space and was well screened from major highways and neighboring properties. Upon further inquiry, I learned that Dorset Park involved a total of 108 acres. The project was approved for 177 units clustered on only 40 acres (4.4 units/acre) with the remaining 68 acres to be used for the Park. 10.Q How does the Trust property compare to the Dorset Park development? 10.A The Trust property is much larger in area (222 acres) than Dorset Park (108 acres). The Trust property is significantly similar in terms of visibility from major public views. Much of the interior portion of the property cannot be seen from public roads or neighboring properties. Therefore, development densities could easily be increased in the interior of the property without off -site visual impact. If the Calkins family decides to increase the number of lots in the interior proportion of the property above what is currently shown on Exhibit D-C2, this higher density would seem to fit the Dorset Park model and the intent of the Southeast Quadrant District. Some increase in density may be required as we consider the economics of development costs for the infrastructure improvements. However, based on our preliminary BumK AINDERSON -C MELLONIPLIC Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 5 estimates, we do not anticipate more than 100 lots for the entire project with no more than 1 unit per acre in the designated development areas that are visible from public roads including Allen Road, Spear Street and Dorset Street. Prefiled Testimony of Bernard X. Chenette, p. 2 on behalf of the Downing - Calkins Trust, Application of NIBL Associates #4L0948-EB, November 21, 1994, pp. 2 — 3. 5. Designated Restricted Areas — A substantial amount of housing proposed by the Developer, including substantial housing in the Central Area, is located in designated restricted areas. Housing may not be built in designated restricted areas (South Burlington Zoning Code ("SBZC") § 6.501) as the Developer proposes to do unless the South Burlington Development Review Board determines "that the development activities are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District ("SEQD"). The purpose of the SEQD is as follows (SBZC § 6.00): 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 offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The following must also be considered: The Planning Commission shall review proposed development activity or the location of residential development lots in a restricted area according to the following criteria: (a) Designated open space shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic enjoyment of users of the site, surrounding properties, and roads in the vicinity. Mr. John Dinklage, Chair BURAK ANDERSON& MELLONIPLC City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 6 (b) Proposed buildings, lots, streets and other structures shall be placed so as to maximize potential of land for open space and natural resources preservation, scenic view protection, and /or continued agricultural use. In an effort to maximize the above goals, the following shall be considered: (i) Existing natural resources on the site including streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation zones, wildlife habitats and special features such as mature maple groves or unique geologic features. (ii) Scenic view corridors from existing or planned public ways. (iii) Existing agricultural use and/or ability of the land to be improved for agriculture. (iv) Size and shape of contiguous open space and potential for combination with open space and adjacent lots. (v) Natural topography and existing vegetation and forest lands. In this regard, we call to your attention the following: a. As outlined above, the Central Area is characterized by significant natural areas including wetlands and wildlife habitat. b. To construct any housing in the Central Area will require the construction of a road across the wetlands and wildlife area. Such construction may seriously compromise the connectivity of existing. wetlands and wildlife areas. 6. Consistency with South Burlington's Plan — We ask you to consider whether the Developer's proposal implements the following provisions of South Burlington's Municipal Plan (pp 47-55) for the Southeast Quadrant. Among the relevant provisions are the following: • Goal Statement: It is a goal of this City to promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the special character of the Southeast Quadrant. The City will strive to encourage well Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 7 Bum MDERSON 8C MELLONIPLC planned residential development at densities and layouts .that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas and scenic views. • Residential Development Densities: Areas designated as appropriate for development were based on the following general objectives: ❖ Preserve natural features such as wetlands, floodplains and drainage ways. ❖ Protect enough wooded area to maintain viable wildlife habitat and maintain connections between habitats for movement. ❖ Cooperate with the Towns of Williston and Shelburne to plan compatible uses and densities along Town/City lines. • Natural Resources ❖ Preserve and protect the natural resources of the Quadrant including water and drainageways, soil, open spaces, wetlands, wildlife habitat and corridors, Potash Brook source and Muddy Brook. We look forward to working with you to adjust, as justified and necessary, the Developer's proposal to a scale appropriate for Vermont and consistent with South Burlington's goals for the Southeast Quadrant. Very truly yours, JTA\alb SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jta dinklage.doc ST50P f `vt 1 � (t t ! STSO T'T E i Note: Unlabelled Streets are ST60Pb; Streets around Central Green to be detailed. r South Village Proposed Street Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 12, 2002 SFEAR STREET .............. ......... o p aG, a� 0 0 0 40 5' 8' 14' 12' 14' 8' 5' I LANE I LANE I R.O.W. I I I I 5' 8' 14' 12' 14' a' 5; 1 LANE I LANE R.O.W. OV-66 w South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 C2002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved. It 20, 2 LANES 60'-01, R.O.W. � ---- -------------------- I I PRIVATE ----1 DRIVEWAY ----------------- I I I I I III 1 I I I 5' 1 0 Q�' B 8' 6' 1 5' 1 20' 8' �&' 2 LANES 60'a0" R.O.W. ST-60P p II I , 1 , I , 1 p I I , I , I I I a Qd I I , I p II I , I � , I , 4' 5' 8' 26' 8' 5' 4' 2 LANES R.O.W. I I , 4' 5' 8' 26' 2 LANES 60'-0 " R.D.W. ST-60Pb 209 101h Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fax 615 726 1 1 12 Internet www.Irk.com Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Plonning Inienors Reseorch ' I I I I I I , I Q ° I I J13 I 1 , I W i W I I ' 4 1 K I I � a �o 6p 2T 20' 2 LANES R.O.W. I I I I I I 20' 6' ✓' 2' 2 LANES 60'-O " R.O.W. ST-b0 South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 Oc 2002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved- 0 d � I tyI I Q ° I � I a �p o o ? I J's Ica _ I I I I I I � I C> � I � ° I 16' 26' 2 LANES R.O.W. I I I Ira 26 8' S' 5' 2 LANES R.O.W. ST-b0b 0 1 1 � I I 6 I I a ° Ca I ° I 2 LANES R.O.W. I I I I 2 LANES R.O.W. ST-b0 Pa � 209 1 Oth Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fox 615 726 1112 Internet www.Irk.com M. PT.- hviIle Princelen Architecture Pl n!i Intedcus Research 0 0M 11 �k'm 6 a Qd 0 0 0 0 5' v 24, 8' S' 2 LANES 50'-0" R.O.W_ (or (o0' w/ 5' Setbacks) I I I I I 5' 8' 24' 8' S' 2 LANES 50'-0" R.O.W. (or 60' w/ 5' Setback5) ST-50 South Village offs J Proposed Street Sections �911 The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 Oc2002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved. I I I I I I I I ; I Q Q I I i Q C? ul �LpS I I O I 0 I I LS I �l c? I I 1 1 I I I I I I LU I I I ; I I 1 6 I K I 10 I I Qo I I Q d Q I I I 27' 2 LANES R.D.W. I I I I 2i' I S' 6' 5' 2' 2 LANES R.O.W. ST-50a 0 i42, b I b Q �ILI � n I � Q 0 Lij 1 I 0 t1j I 1 a �fJ I 0 W R,QLr 20' 14' 2 LANES R.O.W. I I I 1 3' S' 8' 20' 14' 2 LANES R.O.W. ST-50b 209 1 Oth Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fox 615 726 1 1 12 Internet www.Irk.com Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Plonning Inferiors Research 0 � I � I I � I b O 0 1 q `}c �1 Z W 1� �l I � 0 I U iF I to C, 3' 5' 8' 26' 8' 2 LANES R.O.W. I I 1 2 LANES R.O.W. s 6� ST-50p�y� South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 't2002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Al 0 � 0 I I b � ( Z I U b I I I 1 LL o � �a � I a I 3 5' 8' 24' 20' 2 LANES I I I R.O.W. I 3' S' 8' 24' 20' 2 LANES R.O.W. RD-60 I I I 1 U GARAGE it III I I I 1 GARAGE e J, T 0 4 tl 4 I 1 GARAGE I I I I I 1 I i GARAGE I I I I I 1 3' I 20' 3' 2 WAY R.O.W. I 3 20' 5' 2 WAY R.O.W. AL-26 209 1 W Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fox 615 726 1 1 12 Internet www.lrk.com Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Plonning Inferiors Reseorch 1 --- -� _ 4 4~1L 4 - '; DEDICATED OFF-STREET 1 ``--._ f ' r' �4 ' 44,�' �'•, PARKING DIAGRAM 4Small Single � EI Moderate Single 4 • 4 Cotta e i -2_i 4—j �- --j ; 9 �-.--q Palisades --__ 4 , 4� �1; Barn Unit ' �\ �; �' Duplex --� Triplex r IN Multi -Family 67- 1 Total dedicated off-street parking = 866 +/- spaces 4 4 4 Numbers on plan 4y , represent off-street r �� ., parking spaces per • 2i 4 LL44 4.'\ " lot. ' r 4F4 4 `A 4�_i 4 4 4 1 � ` i r 2 .L2 r'- -- 4 4 -�l 4 O / �! </2' � < 4 _ f 4T4?"T' r -� �' ��- 4 4= y 4 ' r L 2 �2 � ,\. i r 4� :L_-- _--� j 4� 4 4 Y 4 l ' I 1 PARKING SUMMARY Private Street l Parallel Parking 217 +/- spaces Public Street ' Parallel Parking 127 +/- spaces Pocket Parking 113 +/-spaces 1 `Numbers on plan represent parking spaces. Off -Street Parking Total = 866 spaces (Does not include civic, or farm parking) On -Street Parking Total = 457 spaces Total Parking = 1,323 +/- spaces YjLl Do F_j N Ain 17-Li Epo, I At A1111 I I I )n I I 1�1 t 1l I I I If I it I I JL- WL 7474:4 fs Cb Al A TA P-6 -P ;I al C- C: 5 H z U) > w X m ppgq� All C)c Flo 10 yJ(D South Village X91 Calkins Property South Burlington, Vt t e. C • 5 < I be z. �'"•'•.Y -.` Alap Prepared b v. "— "" • " ' ' i' ARRO WOOD ENVIRONMENTAL � t• t '" +. `�� .� i. � � .. Y L . �' tL BOiI 11. 1]6 4%i9011 ,1. 110 Key: r �;' � 5 i�• >;��, ,� Proposed Wetland Crossings (Approximate) w � �' .F•' Property Boundary (Approximate) Wetland Boundary (Approximate) � .> - a � g �•, �>i South Burlington Wetlands m t. ;r.►♦ioa Additional Wetland Areas t '"">,♦,oj>��, Wetland boundary approximated from Wetland Plan by Civil Engineering r • A • • Associates, page C2, August 2001. All�� ♦♦••AI�A♦o s Additional wetland impact areas ? .' „k �,' �o �• o ♦ 1 identified by Arrowwood "s ••iAi� i i>i �' preliminary k .- .. ""� Environmental through preli nary Me,,� s >♦•♦•+♦•o a.i�' site evaluation, not formal w , • ...°q�♦AA♦>♦•` s•o♦�♦� delineation protocol. i. •A• ►A♦fit a. :,;� .: w -r� ' ,r«.,.a•,u ,••• ;' ,! _� ;�► o♦O•�iwo.►•1��� � Map base Orthophotography by ,•. +�.... ., Y • ♦ ♦�� ♦� �•�o•�♦♦ Vermont Mapping in Project, �s> r ,+� s�•,� ♦�°�•�•,r photo date, 1999. E, •�♦ ♦ • ♦ ..... Wy ��, > • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ o + ♦ •"'� South Burlington Wetlands from > • ♦ ♦ > ♦ • • > > o • City of South Burlington. t _ r: _ ',f =:. �.`,•±A+♦♦ ,` �±♦♦ � *e � •ohs .`+�..:: tY 9 .' w a y , ' ♦•♦•••••s �••� T�It + > a a Map for personal use only, j may exist. � 1. • ♦�•O •i'♦ v' r•♦>4 a.,'''f: A♦�� o•i+0� ac''' Y ti+r ..,TM v ;' �, + -.. - • •�!•bo•♦�♦i•Ox'•i 1♦^A *8♦••♦>! - �1•9• , •Aa�4 ► O 4 ' � - " '' ,' . o ♦ice j4♦� i r, . Jr91 O ♦op ' � '�'`" ' �„ y -if �+gip'• A: i'1. t�if w, oC4W& k Tf i 4, r, , y, ...... i r' 1 T s �, s , . , � m. • 'N4 + �,gPa.«^rN - � � �� d+• . ;:, F'A '� Preaced tor: - Skip Vallee Scale: ti'- 1 !h r_ i► • o " .c?`i► *'.' 1+' 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet „ 1:4800 P� prepared by: Date: ,. `, i ... _ $ -.d: ' � •. -% '} t Y�. A V December 1, 2002 r� ,'•e _, ,• - pro) ect P J c:\gis\projects\southviItage\southvilIlage.apr 1 0ec-02-02 11:12A i+cv-vc-cr .c 111 : 1 1 rra P _ 02iRTON 802434-Z02 P.y1 Caulkine Property. South Surlingtolt Site Review on August 17. 2001 I'IC�,CItt un site review: John Austin, Jodi Shippuc, Dave Mtushilll, Errol Briggs, An Gibniut, Ken U rav;:rin an. Observation l .mensive wetlands sun oundcii by islands ofinature mixed wood foresr tivirh ahundailt tortwood (ninset) white pine). Much of the property i3 fallow meadow a result of abandoned farm land.. Tt has grown up ro dugw000 in 1 Vizch%*ork pattern with grasAaind dnrerntixrd. The werlands arc largely open seduc: with one ollenwater pontf Nvall abundant evidence of wildlife u5e (feeding on crayfish, Crayfish btlrrotcin,, in niud WA. racoon liacks, GA heron Iracks, consultants observed ducks, likaly used by oacr, mink, %tease-)), a forested reed maptc sw;tcttp at east end of property is t:xcellent wildlife h abitnt, and an island of,ahvost pure oak and hickory in field. 1'131s area is very' tints srrves a myriad of wildlife functions. Grassland birds hove bZcn observed includip$ bobolink. I listorical site for threatened upland sandpiper, but recent observations have nol ,hoe. n any of this species. Not sure of the adequacy ol'i?te survey by Brigg-s Also, may be rood New• t'ngland cottontail habitat .he-Iiiccourt be an issue:. A150, likely nesting habitai K-e uwaodcuck. C)haorved a deer. Good habitat for raptors including potentiat hlbttat for northern h:arsiers. So. Burlinatnn cxptCts ED rcgwre a 01rough road that wOuld bisect th'e property and wellailds. Phis Nvould be a huge impact to the wildlife functions of this habitat. Wcilands de,;mc wide burfers and permanent conscrvVion. but huller may prutie difficult since; much of the area arowid the ol+cu sedge weilands is also ni, meaduu•. Not nitich: for visual or avdirory buffers. A road bi-ceiing the property would sev»t unacceptible based on ow, currrni level of understand'na�; of rh ildliN v a.lues of the site. High density housing would also not be compatihic %villt this si(u. Ton many pcnnlc would create as urea[ all impact on these -etinn& a5 Dh)Sloal altcratioa. The sowh,.vest portion of t}tc progeny shows the must promise for light devclopnient Pvs1-it"' Pax Nora 7671 uu!c 7a From E� `omPPt12 4� Ph1,r>o Phone i< ATTACHMENT 4 Permit a GP-58 Effective Date: 15 October 1997 Expiration Date® 15 October 2002 Applicant: Genes Public -State of Vermont Department General is ermit State ol' Vermont The New England Division of the I.J.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) . h, ereby issues a general permit (GP) that expedites review of minimal impact work as defined by the Corps in navigable and inland waters and wetlands within the State of Vermont. GENERAL CRITERIA: Activities with minimal impacts, as specified by the terms and conditions of this GP and on the attachedOF CATEGORIES, are r Category - vAthoutscreening, non -reporting ::, the Corps,or hi Category B; determination of eligibility made through interagency z screening r r: atio t: by r` Corps andr.eral ResrAgencies o and '10fildlife .r i- i n Agency, Nationalr The Cwps inkLivid-mal permit review process and actMtles e.=mpt *om Corpsjurisdiction we notaffected this r w. ACTIVITIES Work and structures :identified in the attached Appendix A, "Definition of Categories" sheets when such work is located in, or affects, navigable waters of the United States as regulated by the Corps under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors .act of 1899, and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands as regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the dean dater Act_ For clamcation, the term "discharge of dredge or till material" includes certain discharges resulting from excavation, (as per 33 CFR :CART 323.2 (iii) the term -discharge of dredged material" means any addition of dredged material into & including any redeposit of dredged material w1thAn the waters of the United sates). ,Following is a list of State permits that may be required for work in waters and wetlands in the State of Vermont: *Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) approval of a Conditional Use Determination under the Vermont Wetland Rules; -VT DEC approval of a Stream Alteration Permit under Title 10, Chapter 41, Subchapter 2; -VT DEC approval of a Lake Encroachment Permit under Title 29, -ehapter 1-1, Managenimit df Lg&6,s and nd__Po_n_ds_;____ -VT DEC approval of a Dam Construction Permit under Title 10, Chapter 43, Dams; -VT DEC approval of a 1272 Order under Title 10, Chapter 47; -VT Department of Fish and Wildlife (VT F&W) approval of a Stream Obstruction Permit under Title 10, Chapter 111, Section 4607. 77% r ederal and State jurisdictions may differ in some instances. However, ail required State and local permits must be obtained in order for any authorization under this GP to be valid, see condition I of this document, page 7. State Adm- InIstered Federal Laws: (1) Water guality Certification 5VQQ ceder See -Lion 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1341). Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires applicants to obtain a water quality certification or MMjv&Z from the state water pollution control agency: VT Agency of Natural Resources, Water quality Division. For activities in wetlands- the =._DE__G has granted Water Qu %_j U; II.f-CII rsbaa. 15 2 Ine Dermila an!a j2P4MQ_y3M_ hated above, mditm appli Thestatehas conditioned that this certification is valid only for those activities which fully comply with all terms and conditions of the General Permit and the VT DEC reserves the authority to enforce any violation of the Vermont Water quality Standards _that result from any Category A activity. 1herefore separate 401 Water Quality Certification appl,iCallan 2[,1.11 not be refruire Ir =IlAtlis InmQhdI39_MLIa_ waLu_s. of the United States authorized under Catelary A of the VT 1"M page 2 PROCEDURES, (continued) in comnhance'mnth Vermont Water Qualit-v Standards prg3jdpd DEC is notified by thge_ Corps and Jhf_prWer ,t Is determined elf-aible for the GP by the interaLTencv review team.. YT DE Tp_seoma the 1:1 t to reouire an ndiE�al Water oualltv . ouLM-r-atQn be obtWned fQr any Cate.gory B 2&MJ�E, Tile 19 DC_ZI_ would do so u der the _sari _IiM_PZmme_s_aet_f6r responses by fhi- Federal Re, source Aanci GPauthorizations consist of both Category A and B type activities.as outlined In -Appendix A of this document. The thresholds outlined in this document are intended ensure that the GP result in minimal impact to the aquatic environment. To insure that these projects will, in fact, result in minimal impact, the Corps will coordinate review of Category B Activities with the Federal Resource Agencies and the State of Vermont and may require project modifications or mitigation to minimize impacts. All wetland boundaries must be determined in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and any applicable subsequent federal guidance. CATE GO, RY A Non- ° rt ":gig/ Minlim, al Impacts gigiblIlly" - Activities in "Iermont that are: -Subject to Corps jurisdiction, -Meet the definition of Category A on Appendix A, Definition of Categories -Meet the conditions of this GP listed on pages 7-12, D I C31 an ' I I I 'l �, I A i;:Iiii Note that the review thresholds under Category A apply to single and complete projects only (see condition 5) and the applicant must obtain any of the necessary state permits listed on page 2 of this GP. There are also restrictions on national lands as well as conditions which must be met in order for projects to be eligible for authorization under this GP. Refer to conditions 6 through 11 and Appendix A of this GP. page 3 PROCEDURES, f continued) Althouigh Catelorv,A mroiects are raon-repo ing. the Cc, rms wiH exercise -its h-glily !V&MQW� D_di_rLd_u_aLqennft rnylmy ff th conr,ernsfor the anuatic environment or any otherfactor of themmeblic interest thist MAY 90mr, to our attention. Refer to condition 4 Qn Discretion2a Authority. The Corps has set the Category A threshold for inland waters and wetlands' , page I of Appendix A at 3,000 s.f. based on protection of valuable regional wetlands and the State of Vermont's ability to issue water quality certification for up to 3,000 s.f. of wetland impact. The Corps will review the 3,000 S-f limit one year from the date this GP becomes effective to determine if the limit is appropriate. Category B Screenling/Mlinimal Inapacts li 'bHitv - Activities in Vermont which are: -Subject to Corps jurisdiction, -Meet the definition of Category B in Appendix A, Definition of Categories, and -Meet the conditions of this GP listed on pages 8-13 Requi-re 'ttnn._qppm2v_ , = th- cor . Wiese projects -RiH be ,os reviewed thYvud,,h Interagency screening coordination to deta=lne Whether such acthifties may be authorixed under this P. The Corps and the Federal Resource Agencies and the VT DEC will comprise the interagency review team. The Corps will determine eligibility for projects with aquatic impacts between 3, 000 s.f. to 5, 000 s.f. All projects impacting over 5, 000 s.f of water or wetland will be screened by the interagency review team to determine eligibility. To be eligible and subsequently authorized, an activity must result in minimal m_ impacts to the aquatic envir6nent__ as determined by the Corps based on comments from the review team in addition to meeting the criteria listed herein. Compensatory mitigation may be required to compensate for unavoidable impacts to render net effects of a project minimal. When necessary, the Corps shall contact the applicant to discuss concerns raised during screening. Note that review thresholds under Category B apply to single and complete projects only (see condition 5). There are also restrictions on national lands as well as conditions which must be met in order for projects to be eligible for authorization under this GP. Refer to conditions 6 through 11. excluding Lake Champhtin.. Lake Mernphrennagog, - Wallace Fond,. and adjacent and special wetlands as defined on Page 6 of Appendix A. page 4 PROCEDURES, (continued) In order for the interagency review team to review a project, the applicant must submit adequate plans. These include ® Plans which illustrate the proposed work in reference to the limits of Corps jurisdiction as applicable. Mans should be on 8.5 " by i I- paper and contain all other appropriate information. ® A description of the project purpose and location, including a locus reap and photographs, if applicable. O A narrative description of the habitat(s) including dominant plant cornmunity(ies)present, soil type and relevant exdsting and adjacent land uses. Dpl cation Procedures - Applicants will apply directly to the Corps at the Vermont Field Office. The Corps will review the application for completeness and screen complete applications for Category B activities impacting between 5, 000 s.f. and one acre with the Federal resource agencies. Federal./State Screening Procedures - Joint screening coordination between the Carps and the Federal Resource Agencies will occur on a regular basis for L11 Category B activities impacting between 5,000 s.f. and one acre of waters and wetlands. The Corps will coordinate with the VT DEC for all Category B projects who will male a determination as to whether or not an individual water quality certification is required. The Corps will coordinate screenings monthly and, when necessary, hold coordination meetings at the Corps' Vermont Project Office in Colchester, Vermont. However, efforts will be made to complete the coordination process through the snail. The Corps •walk require individu permit review if any one of the Federal Resource Agencies expresses and identifies a concern related to the aquatic enviTonment withix� their area of expertise within the specifled time frame. page 5 PROCEDU . � (continued) During the screening coordination, the Corps will determine, in consultation 'with the Federal Resource Agencies, if applicaLlons for Category B work: (1) reqmdre additional information; (2) are ellglble under the GP as proposed; (3) are ineligible under the tarns d/or conditions of this GP; (4) wM require project rnodifcation, mitigation or other special conditions to minimize impacts and protect the aquatic environment to be eligible for this GP; or (5) require individual peax. nit review, irrespective of whether the terms and conditions of this GP are .met, based on agency concerns within their area of e--pertise or based on other concerns for the aquatic environment cr any other factor of the public interest (see Condition 49 Discretionary Authority). f a Federal resource agency raises concerns during the screening process, the Core may contact the applicant to discuss the concerns and possible .modificatiorns or mitigations to the project. if the applicant is unable to resolve the concerns or modify the project, the Corps will require an individual permit for the activities if that agency so requests. The Corps will notify the applicant in writing within 25 working days of the screening coordination that their project is not eligible for Category B and will be kicked out to an Individual Permit Review,, The Corps will provide information about submitting the necessary application materials for individual permit review. if the applicant is able to modify the proposal to address agency concerns, that project may be rescreened with the review -team'a3rid subsequently- authorized under the GP. Comments regarding projects reviewed during monthly screening coordination may be verbal initially and will be accepted within 10 working days of the date the package is received. Each commenting agency shall complete and submit VT GP comment forms for the file and/or provide verbal comments to the appropriate Corps project manager. Comment forms will be accepted by the Corps during the 10 working day verbal comment period following the Agency's receipt of the application. Packages will be mailed out monthly on a regular basis. The specific date will be agreed to by all. page 6 PROCEDURES, fcant�ueco The verbal comments must be conffirined in waiting withIn 10 working days after the verbal comment period in order for the Corps to require an Individual permit. The Federal Resource Agency's concerns must be clearly identified and reflect a concern related to the aquatic environment within their area of expertise. Comments should state the species or resources that could be impacted by the activity(ies; and describe the impacts that either individually or cumulatively will be more than minimal. The written resnonse must be sib'ned by the F2d?,ral a-ency field supervisor or Branch Chief, as appropriajr,, Work that is in the INDIVIDUAL, PERMIT category as listed in Appendix A, DEFINITION OF CATEGORIES, or that sloes not meet the terms and conditions of this GP, will require an application for an individual permit from the Corps of Engineers (see 33 CFR Part 325.1). Applications and supporting materials for work that is clearly in the :individual Permit category should be submitted directly to the Corps of Engineers as early as possible in order to expedite the permit review process. General information and application forms can be obtained by calling the Corps New England Division at 1-890-343-4789 or 1-800- 382-4367 (within Massachusetts), or the Corps Vermont Project ®Vice at 802 655-0334. Individual WQC will be required from, the appropriate VT Resource Agency(ies). Filing an Individual Permit application sloes not relieve the applicant from their obligation to obtain all necessary state approvals from the appropriate VT Resource Agency(ies) or any applicable local approvals. page 7 The feHowing conditions apply to activities authorized under this GP, including aH Category A [non -reporting) and Category B activities (reporting/ screening): GENERA L REQUIREMENTS.- 1. Other Permits. Authorization under this general permit does not obviate' the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. 2. ApnUcabilitvof this mIGPshaH_bP ,m ,!, ll tfdmith reference to Federal giarl!tA. -Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the boundaries used satisfy the federal criteria defined at Title 33 CFR 328-329. 3. Minimal Effects. Projects authorized by this general permit shall have minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts as determined by the Corps. 4. Discretion a;ry Authority. Notwithstanding compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit, the Corps of Engineers retains discretionary authority to require an application for an individual permit for any regulated project based on concerns for the aquatic environment or for any other factor of public interest. This authority is invoked on a case -by -case basis whenever the Corps determines that the potential consequences of the proposed activity warrant individual review based on the concerns stated above. This authority may be invoked for projects with cumulative environmental impacts that are more than minimal, or if there is a special resource or concern associated with a particular project that Is not already covered by the remaining conditions of the GP and that warrants greater review. Whenever the Corps notifles an applicant that an individual permit m. ay be required, authorization under this GP is void, and no work may be conducted until the individual Corps permit is obtained, or until the Corps not'-fies the applicant that further review has demonstrated that the work may proceed under this GP. 5. Single and Complete Projects. This GP shall not be used for piecemeal work and shall be applied to single and complete projects. All components of a single project shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. AH planned phases of multi -phased projects shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. This GP shall not be used for any activity that is part of an overall project for which an individual perrait is required. Note that modifications to State permits do not constitute a separate project. ModifIcations which involve Corps jurisdictions will be screened through interagency coordination in order to ascertain compliance with the GP. 2 obviate means 'to make unnecessary' page 8 W 6. Historic Properties. Any activity authorized by this PCP shall comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Information on the location and eustence of historic resources can be obtained from the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation and the National Register of Historic Places. Applicants with projects which will undergo the screening process, shall submit a copy of their application materials to the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (address on page 15 of this document) to be reviewed for the presence of historic/ archaeological resources in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed work. The Corps will then be no flied by that agency if there are State concerns that the proposed work will have an effect on historic resources. The applicant should include with their application to the Corps, either a copy of their cover letter to the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, of a statement of having done so. if the Permittee, during construction of work authorized herein, encounters a previously unidentified archaeological or other cultural resource within the area subject to Corps jurisdiction that might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, he/she shall stop work and immediat-t-ly notify the District Engineer and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. 7. National Lands® Activities authorized by this GP shall not impinge upon the value of any National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, or any other area administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, or National Park Service. B. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under this GP which may, affect a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species; or which would result in a "take" of any threatened or endangered species of fish or wildlife, or which would result in any other violation of Section 9 of the ESA protecting threatened or endangered species of plants. Applicants shall notify the Corps if any listed species or critical habitat is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (addresses attached, page 15). 9® Wild and Scenic Rivers. Any activity that occurs in a component of, or within 0.25 n-Ales up or downstream of the main stem or tributaries of a river segment of, the National Wild and Scenic River System, must be page 9 reviewed by the Corps under the procedures of Category B of this GP. This condition applies to both designated Wild and Scenic rivers and rivers designated by Congress as. Study Rivers for possible inclusion while such rivers are in an official study status. At this time, there are no rivers in Vermont listed as either designated or as study rivers. 10. Federal Navigation Project. Any structure or work that extends closer to the horizontal limits of any Corps navigation project than a distance of three times the project's authorized depth shall be subject to removal at the owner's expense prior to any future Corps dredging or the performance of periodic hydrographic surveys. 11. Navigation. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigatJon by the existence or use of the activity authorized herein, and no attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public: of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the activity authorized herein. MINIMIZATION M 12. Minimization. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 13. Work i Wetlands. Heavy equipment worlcLng in wetlands shall be avoided if possible. If such work is unavoidable, when site conditions are such that rutting, soil compaction, erosion or other disturbance would result, equipment shall be placed on mats or other measures taken (such as delay work until frozen or dry ground conditions exist) to minimize adverse effects to soil and vegetation. Disturbed areas in wetlands shall be restored to preconstruction contours and conditions capon completion of the work. In many cases the mats are considered a discharge of fill material and must be included in the quantification of impact area and authorized by this GP. 24. Tempor=-,y FLU. Temporary fall in waters and wetlands authorized by this GP (e.g. access roads, cofferdams) shall be properly stabilized during use to prevent erosion. In addition, temporary fill in navigable or inland waters of the U.S. should consist of a material that minimizes impacts to water quality (e.g. sandbags or clean, gravel and/or stone). Temporary fill in wetlands shall be placed on geotextile fabric which is laid on the existing wetland grade. Temporary fills shall be disposed of at an upland site and suitably contained to prevent erosion and/or transport to a wateruvay or wetland. Ail areas of temporary fill shall be restored to their original elevations. 15. Sedimentation and Brosion Contxal. adequate sedimentation and erosion control management measures, practices :and devices, such as pleased construction ve-letated Ater strips geotextile silt fences or other page 10 devices, shall be installed and properly maintained to reduce erosion and retain sediment on -site during and after construction. They shall be capable of preventing erosion, of collecting sediment, suspended and floating materials, and of filtering fine sediment. These devices shall be removed upon completion of work and the disturbed areas shall be stabilized. The sediment collected by these devices snail be removed and placed at an upland location, in a manner that will prevent its later erosion into a waterway or wetland. All exposed soil and other fills shall be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. 16. Waterway Crossings. (a) All temporary and permanent crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to withstand and to prevent the restriction of high flows, to maintain existing low flows, and so as not to obstruct the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody beyond the actual duration of construction. M No open trench excavation in flowing waters, shall be allowed unless screened and conditioned to protect the aquatic environment. (c)Temporary bridges, culverts, or cofferdams shall be used for equipment access across streams (note: areas of fill and/or cofferdams must be included in total waterway/wetlands impacts to determine applicability of this general permit). (d) For projects that otherwise meet the terms of Category A, unconfined in - stream construction work (without cofferdams) shall be conducted during the low flow period of duly 15 - October 1 in any year. Projects that are conducted outside of that time period are ineligible for Category A and shall be screened pursuant to Category B, regardless of the waterway and wetland fifl and/or impact area. 17. Discharge of Polluunts. ,All activities involving any discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States authorized under this general permit shall be consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations, standards of performance, prohibitions, and pretreatment standards and management practices established pursuant to the dean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), and applicable state and local laws. If applicable water quality standards, limitations, etc., are revised or modified during the terra of this permit, the authorized work shall be modified to conform with these standards with S months of the effective date of such revision or modification, or within a longer period of time deemed reasonable by the District Engineer in consultation with the regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Applicants may presume that state water quality standards are met with issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Applicable only to the Section 404 activity). ;page 11 I . Spa°wmlng grease Discharges into known: a) fish and shellfish spawning or nursery areas; or b) amphibian and waterfowl breeding areas, during spawning or breeding seasons shall be avoided. additionally, impacts resulting mom discharges into these areas shall be minimized to the ma_�num extent practicable, during all other times of the year. 19. Storage of Seasonal Structures. Seasonal or recreational structures such as pier sections, floats, etc., that are removed from the waterway for a portion of the ;year shall be stored in an upland location, located above mean high water and not in a wetland. 20. Environ3nental Values. The permittee shall make every reasonable effort to carry out the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to maintain as reach as is practicable, and to nninirnize any adverse impacts on, existing fish, and w ldlife, and natural environmental values. 21. Inspections. The permittee shall allow the District Engineer or his authorized representative(s) to male periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to ensure that the work is being performed in .accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The District Engineer may also require post -construction engineering drawings for completed work, and post -dredging survey drawings for any dredging work. 22. Maintenance® The permittee shall maintain the work or structures authorized herein in good condition, including maintenance to ensure public safety. dote that this does not include maintenance of dredging projects. Maintenance dredging is subject to the review thresholds described on the attached Appendix ,a, DEFINITION OF CATEGORIES and/or any conditions included in a written Corps authorization. . Propey Rights. This GP does not convey any property rights, either- in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. 24. od cation, Suspension, and Revocation. This GP may be either modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and procedures of 33 CF R 325.7, any such action shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against -the United States. 25. Restor2tion. The permittee, upon receipt of a nonce of revocation of authorization under this GP, shall restore the wetland or waterway to its former conditions without expense to the United States, and as directed by the Secretary of the array or his authorized representative. If the permittee fails to comply with such a. directive, the Secretary or his designee may page 12 restore the wetland or water -way to its former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost from the permitte e. 26. Special Conditions. The Corps May Impose other special conditions on a project authorized pursuant to this GP that are determined necessary to minimize adverse ens o=ental effects or based on any other factor of the public interest. These may be used on concerns from a Federal resource agency. Failure to comply with all conditions of the authorization, including special conditions, will constitute a permit violation and may subject the Perrflittee to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties or restoration. 27. False or Incomplete hfformation. if the Corps makes a determination regarding the eligibility of a project under this GP, and subsequently discovers that it has relied on false, incomplete, or inaccurate information provided by the permittee, the permit shall not be valid and the U.S. Government may institute legal proceedings. 28. Abandonment. If the permittee decides to abandon the activity authorized under this OP, unless such abandonment is merely the transfer of property to a third party, he/she may be required to restore the area to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 29. Enforcement cases. This general permit does not apply to any existing, or proposed activity in Corps Jurisdiction associated with a Corps of Engineers or EPA enforcement action, until such time as the enforcement action is resolved or the Corps or EPA as appropriate determines that the activity may proceed independently without compromising the enforcement action. 30. Duration of Authorization. This GPauthorizatio ires eve years from effective date. Category A activities authorized under this GP that have the eff n eXP il r m commenced (i.e., are under construction, or are under contract to commence) will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the expiration date. Categor y B activities authorized under this GP are valid as specified in the GP authorization letter unless: a) the GP is either modified or revoked, or b) discretionary authority has been exercised in accordance with 33 CF'R1 325.2(e)(2). Activities DDM2P1C-ttd under this GP win continue to be authorized by the Gp after the e.�piration date. page 13 S:L. Pre ViotIsIy Authorized ActIvItles- a) Projects that have received written authorization from the Corps under the Nationwide permits prior to issuance of this GP shall remain authorized as specified in each authorization. b) Non -reporting nationwide permit activities which have commenced, e(i.e., are under construction or are under contract to commence) prior to th issuance date of this GP, remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the date of issuance of this GP. These activities are still subject to discretionary authority on a case -by -ease basis in accordance 'with Condition 4. The applicant must be able to document to the satisfaction of the Corps that the project was under construction or contract by the appropriate date. c) Activities authorized pursuant to 33 CFR Part 330.3 (activities occurring before certain dates) are not affected by this GP. DISTFUCT ENG14ER page 94 DEM.- 91=1 Ne,,,v England District, Regulatory Branch Vermont Project Office Camp Johnson, Building 10- 18 Colchester, Vermont 051::446 (802) 655-0334 Fax #: 802 655-0818 National Park Service National Park Service North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 223-5191 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region, VT State Program Unit - CHIT JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203, (617) 565-1545 Federal Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4di Floor, Ralph Pill Marketplace 22 Bridge Street, Unit I Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 225-1411 State Enclang-exed Species TT Agenc7 of Natural Res-owees Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Non -Game and Natural Heritage Program 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0501 (802) 241-3700 Mstoric Resources Division for Historic Pre servadon 135 State Street, 4th Floor Drawer 33 Montpelier, Vermont 05633-1201 (802) 828-3226 Ve=ont Agency of Natzzal Resources Department of EnvircnmenW Conservation Dept- of Envhvnmental Conservation Water Quality Division - Wetlands Water Quality Division 103 South Main Street Encroachment Program Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 103 South Main Street (802) 241-3770 Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 (802) 241-3777 agency of'Natural Resources Stream Alteration Program 184 Portland Street St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (802) 748-8787 Department of Fish and Wildlife Stream Obstruction Program. 103 South Main Street Waterbury, 'VT 05671-0408 Dept. of EnviromanenW Conservation Dam Safety Program 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0407 (802) 241-3737 page 15 Permit o.: GP5 Effective Date: 29 September 1998 Expiration Date, 15 October 199,S ,Name of Applicant: General Public, State of Vermont AMEND E -T TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL PERMIT STATE OF VERMONT The Vermont General Permit (VT GP) has been in use in the New England District since October 15, 1998. Based on experience and after coordination with the State of Vermont, Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&CIS), the VT GP is hereby modified as follows: Categor•�r ,� New Fill JEycavation �ischar�es in Inland waters and wetlands Stream crossings are now Category B activities. The Corps will determine eligibility for stream crossings with aquatic impacts between o to 5,()C0 s.f. All projects impacting over S,®®C s.f. of water or wetland will 'be screened by the interagency review team to determine eligibility. Wallace Pnnd and adiacent wetlands This category of activity no longer allows for any expansion or change in use. All other aspects of Category A remain in full force and effect. Cate ory 8 New Fill/Excavation ischar. es in W-nnd watery and wetlands Sta earn crossings .are now Category S activities. The Corps will determine eligibility for stream crossings with aquatic impacts between 0 to 5,000 s.. All projects impacting over 5,000 s.f. of water or Wetland will be screened by the interagency review tears to determine eligibility. Miscellaneous Activities in Inland Navigable waters and adiacent wetlands This is a new category of activity to encompass work within Section 1() water Nays. Additional activities are (1) New and maintenance dredging up to 5000 cubic yards with upland disposal or beach nourishment, provided there are no impacts to special aquatic sites; and (2) Aerial transmission lines. Pile -supported Structures and Floats in Lake Chard fain Lake emo rema000Wallace Pond and adiacdnt wetlands We have added non -fill structures to provide recreational access to the waterbody (e.g., stairways, etc.). All other .aspects of Category 3 remain in full force and effect. Individual Permit Miscellaneous Activities in Inland Navigable waters and adjacent wetlands This is a ,new category of activity to encompass work within Section 10 waterways. .Additional activities are (1) Maintenance dredging of any amount affecting a special aquatic site; (2) New and maintenance dredging greater than 5000cubic ;cards or in or affecting a special aquatic site; and (3) Dredging with open water disposal. Definition of Categories The Batten kill River to its headwaters has been added to the fist of a ivers of concea All other Conditions of the original VT GP remain in full force and effect. &—E— ---- NCIfyEE DATE - 'Djeflinition of Categories Jonditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category B Individual Permit Inland Vetere and Wetlands (Waters of theU.S.) (1) excluding Lake Champlain, Lake Memt)hrema000 . Wallace Pond & wetlands adiacent to these water bodies. 1) NEW FILL Less than 3,000 st WaterwayAlVetland fill and excavations & secondary 1. 3,000 s.f. to one acre inland greater than one acre Inland ��"�� Impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded or waterway and(or wetland fill & secondary Impacts, e. areas p , ( g° waterway and/or wetland fill ifc secondary impacts (e.g. area DI mechanically cleared) provided: ®no drainer), flooded or cleared). drained, flooded or cleared), Impact to special wetlands (6) othe Includes all temporary (5) & Includes temporary (5) and impact area Includes all temporary (;5) permanent fill excavation areas. p permanent fill and areas affected by & permanent discharges; 2. Time of year restrictions excavation discharges. -in stream, work limited to 7/15-10/1. determined on a case by case )dotes: Dams, dikes, stream crossings, basis. water withdrawals or diversion fills & any 3. Any fill up to one acre In a fills in special wetlands are CatB special watiand(6) or In the towns activities. (6) of Athens, Brookline, Grafton, No non -reporting fills In the towns of Idewfane, Putney, Rockingham or ; Athens, Brookline, Grafton, Newfane, Townshend. Putney, Rockingham, or iownshand 4. Gams, dikes, stream crossings, water withdrawals or diversion fills & any fills in special wetlands. k BANK Bank stabilization less than 500 linear Stabilization projects greater than feet (I.fa) & an average of 1 cubic yard 500 l.f, and/or greater than 1 STABILIZATION (e.y.) per l.f. of fail below ordinary high c.y.(averasge) of fill below OHW or PROJECTS water (CHW) or less provided no any amount of wetland fill, or any i vvatland fill. Not including projects on projects on rivers listed In mote 7, rivers listed as note 7, App. A. App A. 3) REPAIR & Repair or maintenance of existing, Replacement of not) -serviceable fills, fills Replacement of serviceable and currently serviceable, authorized fills expansion of serviceable nonserviceable fills with expansion MAINTENANCE OF with no expansion or change in use up to 1 acre (limit of impact to over one acre. AUTHORIZED provided no impact to special waters of U.S. for entire project), FILLS wetlands. (6) repair or replacement of fill with a change In use g p{v REVISED 9/98 AmbunwalikU a..us..:..rsd� - ..:-- 1,. ' Appendix� uee-finition of Categories :��nditions of the CFI apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category B Individual Permit Inland Waters and Wetlands (Waters of the m .) (1) Excluding Lake Champlain, Lake mempnremagog , Wallace Nona do wetlands adlaceni to inese waxer oodles. 4) Oil spill clean-up discharges. Fish and wildlife harvesting devices Zebra Mussel control projects. Fishery habitat enhancement (Projects where an EIS is required MISCELLANEOUS such as duck blinds. structures. by the Corps. Temporary scientific measurement tJ411ity line crossings, water devices and survey activities, i.e., intakes and outfalls, and sea exploratory drilling, surveying, lamprey control projects. sampling. Does not include oil -gas exploration & fills for roads or construction pads. Includes monitoring wells and recreational gold mining. 5) MISCELLANEOUS 1. New and maintenance dredging 1. Afalntenance dredging of any at11 abl up to 5,000 c.y. with upland amount affecting a special aquatic disposal or beach nourishment. No site. Waterways ays and Adl. impacts to special aquatic sites. 2. New and maintenance dredging Wetlands Only (See 2. Aerial transmission lines. greater than 5,000 c.y. or In or App. A, Note 2) affecting a special aquatuc site. 3. Dredging with open water (See App. A, pages 3-5 for disposal. work In or affecting Lake Champlain, Lake IVlamphremargog, Wallace Pond, arndlor ad]. wetlands) Appendix A, pa5e-:2 REVISED 9i9i Appendix - Definition of Categorie Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity category A Category B Individual Permit; LakeI�arPp, ll�ain, Lake ' emphrer� o , ally Pond wetly � adjacent to g6O es water bdies. 6) NEW FILL No non -reporting fills Up to 5,000 sq. ft. waterway/ wetland fill & secondary impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded or cleared). Includes boat ramps & bridge fills. Includes all temporary (5) & permanent waterway/wetiand fills. Greater than 5,000 sq.ft. waterway/wetland till & secondary impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded, or cleared). Includes all temporary (5) & permanent waterway/wetland fills. Temporary (5) fill and excavation discharges over 5,000 sq. ft. Repair or maintenance of existing, Repair of any non -serviceable Replacement of non -serviceable 7} REPAIn- currently serviceable, previously structures and fills. structures or fills. MAINTENANCE authorized structures & fills with WORK no expansion or change In use. ) DREDGING New & Maintenance dredging up Maintenance dredging of any to 5,000 c.y. with upland disposal amount affecting a special aquatic or beach nourishment. site (3). No impacts to special aquatic New and Maintenance dredging sites (3), greater than 5,000 c.y. or In or affecting a special aquatic site (3). All dredging with open water disposal. 1x REVISED 9198 Appendix - Definition of Categories Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category B Individual Permi), Lake Champlain, Lake t0emphremagog , Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent to these water bodies. J) MOORINGS Private, non-commercidi, non- rental, single boat moorings not associated with any beating facility, provided not located in a Federal Navigation Project & no Interference with navigation. Moorings that do not meet the terms of Cat A. 1 0) PILE 1. Reconfiguration of existing 1. Private neon -commercial piers 1. Structures, piers, floats that SUPPORTED authorized docks with no and floats for navigational access extend or, with docked or moored additional slips and no expansion to a waterway other than those vessels will extend, within the STRUCTURES and with no encroachment Into a docks as described in Cat A. horizontal limits of a Federal FLOATS Federal Project. 2. Piers, docks, decks, floats, Navigation Project. 2. Private residential docks and similar structures That 9. Structures, Including {criers extending no further waterward provide public recreational uses and floats, associated with a ntE w than 50 ft. MHW, not greater than 4 such as fishing, swimming, commercial boating facility or ft. wide, & a dock deck area less access, etc. those associated with a than 500 s.f. 3. Non -fill structures to provide previously unauthorized boating 3. No docks, decks or walkways recreational access to the facility. (4) over special aquatic sites. waterbddiy (e.g. stairways, etc.). 'I 1. Temporary (5) buoys, markers, 1. Structures/work In or affecting Projects where an EIS is MISCELLANEOUS floats, etc. for recreational use navigable waters, not defined required by the Corps. during specific events, provided under any previous headings. they are removed within 30 days Includes, but is not limited to: after use is discontinued. I utility lines, aerial transmission 2. Seasonal swimming ffoots. lines, pipelines, outfails, Intakes. REVISED 9/98 It WIlk ouippenaIXA W uennition Off' uaTegones Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category B Individual Permit Lake Champlain, Lake mphre oy Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent - - 3. ®oat & float lifts to authorized 2. Zebra mussel Control projects - -- Activities within the horizontal residential docks, limits of Corps Federal Navigation MISCELLANEOUS 4. Coast Guard approved aids to 3. Fishery habitat enhancement project or with docked or moored (Continued from App. A, page navigation. structures vessels extending within those 4) S. structures/fill incidental to oil limits, (does not Include utility spill clean tap= 4. Sea Lamprey control projects lines, aerial lines and subsurface 5. scientific MeaSUrement devices crossings In Cat B.) & survey activities such as 5. Nuisance aquatic plant control exploratory drilling, projects. - !� such structures do not restrict movements of aquatic organisms. Not to include oil/gas exploration or seismic testing or fills for roads or construction pads. 7. Fish&Wildllfe harvesting devices, e.g. pound nets, & small/flsh attraction devices,e.g. open water fish concentrators, - provided activity is not n wetlands, — except sea Lamprey control projects Ap pehdix A, Pale 5 REVISED 9198 Definition r Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document, State permits may be required for specific projects regardless of the General Permit Category. Notes d. haters of the U.S. in inland areas: inland rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. (Ref. Title 33 CImR 328.4(c)) z. Navigable Waters: waters that have been designated by Congress as navigable. (Ref. Title 33 CFR 329) In Vermont thesi waters are: Lake Champlain, the Connecticut River, Lake Marrophremagog, Wallace pond, Ompompanoosuc River to mile 3.8, Waits River to mile 0.9, the Black River from the mouth to guile 25 in Craftsbury, the Battenkill River to mile 50 in Manchester, the Lamoille River from the mouth to mile 79 in Greensboro, the I issisquoi River from the mouth to mile 88.5 ir° Lowell, Otter Creek from the mouth to mile 53.8 in Procter, the Winooski Diver from the mouth to Marshfield, the Moose Rive from Passumpsic Diver to the Victory Town Line, the Nulhegan River from its mouth to its source including the East Branch, the Black Branch and the yellow Branch, Maul Stream from the mouth to the source, the East Branch of the Passumpsic Diver from the confluence with the Passumpsic River to Bast Haven, the Passumpsic River from the mouth to confluence with the Bast Branch. B.pecAoll Aquatic Rites: Include inland wetlands, vegetated shallows (permanently inundated areas that support rooted quatic vegetation), and riffle and pool complexes. (Ref. 40 CFR 230) 4. i facilities- Facilities that provide, rent or sell mooring space, i.e. marinas, yacht clubs, boat yards, dockominiums Temporgr I vets: Duration limits for temporary impacts will be determined ors a pro ect specific basis at the screening meetings. REVISED 9198 e'"'-Lw-N.....:..� (�yq7 g_yuyy.�p= :...v-•..anr_.,gp$s��„�' p�q�{:!...,��p� Append ii ' — 1 i Il n of VW Vim' � ' d l `rw7 Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through. 1 Z of this document, State permits may be required for specific projects regardless of the General hermit Category. ote3, conatt"ed 6. Special V etlands: vernal pools, bogs, fens, and wetlands which provide habitat for threatened or endangered or species as designated by the State of Vermont Natural Heritage Program. The following definitions for vernal pools, bogs, and fens apply for the purposes of this GP. - a peat accumulating wetland with hydric, organic soils, a complete, or nearly complete, Sphagnum cover and a pH value ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 that receives water primarily from precipitation. Typical species include Sphagnum, leatherleaf, and pitcher plant. fffl - a peat accumulating watlarnd with hydric organic soils and a pH value ranging from 4.0 to 8.0. Sphagnum moss may be present, however, not as a complete cover. It generally receives water and minerals from runoff flowing through It. Typical species Include low sedges, Sphagnum, other mosses and heath shrubs. v_qral Pogl - an often temporary body of water occurring in a shallow depression that fills during spring rains and snow melt and typically dries up during summer months. vernal pools support populations of specialized species which may include woad frogs, mole salamanders (Ambysto ma), fairy shrimp, fingernail clams and other Invertebrates. A feature common to vernal pools is the lack of breeding populations of fish. Some shallow portions of permanent water bodies also provide vernal pool function by supporting breeding populations of vernal pool species. Old, abandoned, artificial depressions may provide these necessary breeding habitats. 7. The following rivers are rivers of concern due to either endangered species or cumulative Impacts. Therefore, there are no ncon-reporting bank stabilization activities in these rivers- * The Vilest River, from Jamaica to the confluence with the Connecticut River; Otter Creek, from Rutland to the confluence with make Champlain; Lewis Creek, from the Rte 116 crossing to the confluence with Lake Champlain; The Missisquol River from the International Boundary in Richford, VT to the Confluence with Lake Champlain; The Lamolle Diver from Hardwick to the confluence with Lake Champlain; The Connecticut river; * The Winooski River from Montpelier to Lake Champlain; 5 The White River to the headwaters; Pikes Falls to the headwaters; ® The Ompornpanoosuc River to the headwaters; * The Poultney River to the headwaters. k The Batten Kill River to the headwaters. dix 74, 03%31: `94 10: 45 US EPr Rc D I 11. BOSTON NA OC16 �fo trr„- r 1. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' R1EG4WJ 1 r *•yt �i ' J-F. XZNNEDY F€DERAL BIJ;LOING• BOS T ON, MASSACHUSETTS o22oa-2211 March 31, 19S 4 Charles P. O'Leary, Jr_ commiSSiorler Now Hampshire Department of Transportati©n John o. Morton Building P.O. Box 483 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03302 Dear C=Missioner O'Leary: I am writing with regard to the proposed construction of the Nashua-iiudson Circumferential Highway in the greater Nashua, New Rampshira area and thz pending Section 404 permit application of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) . Based on the infor-mation which is currently available to me, l ,believe that this Project WO-Uld cause substantial, Severe and unacceptable impacts to valuable wetlands and other aquatic resources. z therefore have decided, ursder EPA 's Clean water Act 404 (c) authority, to commence the Preto process_ I believe this is the only way to ensure adegua.tO protection oi: the wetlands, waters, and natural resources In the area of the proposed project at this time. I am doing this pursuant to regulations published at 40 C.E.R. Part 231. I am taking this action because z believe that the proposed highway would cause severe adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem, Particularly to fish and wildlife. The greater Nashua area has experienced some of the most severe cumulative loss of aquatic habitat in New England during the last several decades. The direct and indirect impacts from the proposed highway would aggravate the severe cumulative loss of habitat and depletion of biodiversity that has occurred. In addition to my concern about the.vagnitude of these adverse impacts, there is a reasonable likelihood that less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives to the project exist. zA constructed, the highway would adversely affect the existing wildlife. community by reducing tote the nu=ber of individuals and diversity of species. Regianally uncommon species would suffer tine most, especially the forest interior and area sensitive animals, thome species dependent an wetland ecosystems, and smaller animals that are either less mobile or depend on vernal pools. In addition to diminishing productivity andenergy Flow in the aquatic system, the highway would also disrupt streams and riparian corridor; that are particularly valuable bei--ause Oi their high productivity and use by wildlife. 10.45 US EFA PA DIV. EOSTON MN 227 ERA is particularly. concerned that one of the last remaining refuges for wildlife in the i=ediata vicinity W0111d be greatly altered. The roadway would not only directly destroy over 40 acres of wetlands, it Would degrade additional wetlands and destroy a large portion of the surrounding upland habitat that greatly influences the value of the aquatic systems nested in the Second Brock basin, one of the last primarily intaot ecosystems remaining in the gzsater Nashua area. Numerous streams and wetlands would be bzsocted, thereby altering the hydrology, disrupting species movement and increasing predation of uncommon species. The highway would fragment numerous wetlands, streams and uplands, and cause impacts well beyond the footprint of the fill. The project would also destroy and indirectly impact several vernal pools. Vernal pools are especially ?valuable to wildlife, particularly as breeding areas for amphibians. In evaluati,nq the adverse impacts of this project, I am mi ndix3l that EPA and the states, having recognized the important environmental resources in the area, have been working to iznple:nent a multi -million dollar initiative to protect the aquatic resourcas of the Merrimack River Watershed. Considerable time, money and effort have been expended during the past three y0ars to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. This project would adversely affect the very resources that ERA has targeted for protection with this watershed initiative. The Merrimack River, which flaws north to south, dominates the hydrology of the study area and is fed by numerous tributaries flawing east to west. since most of the proposed highway heads north and south, the 13 mile road would inevitably crass and fill a number of tributaries and sub --tributaries to the Merrimack. 9 NOreover, the highway Would destroy wetlands which hallo purify the waters of the Merrimack River and Fennichuck ponds, the two largest drinking water supplies in the study area. Greater amount$ of sediment, nutrients, and ether pollutants of urban runoff, such as lead, coil, and gas, would enter the tributary streams and flow into the Merrimack River. Sedimentation results in turbidity and often transports pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins into the streams, which adversely affects aquatic .liter The h;ghwa.y currently proposed mould impact 15 surface and groundwater community drinking water SOurces and add contaminants to these aquatic systems. Stormwater runoff from the highway would degrade both surface and groundwater systems. While mitigation meas�zres would reduce these impacts somewhat, concerns about cflnstruct on work and long problems such as accidents, spills, and lack of maintenar:ca wc}u1a remain. secondary development in the watershed, i-11 part spurred by the highway, Would worsen these problems. 03/31/94 19:46 US EFh Fn DIV. BOSTON MA 208 DOT has prcposed a substantial -mitigation plan. The poor track record associated with wetland creation projects suggests that the mitigation would likely fall short of providing the intended benefits. Even if successful, the proposed mitigation would not replace these lost functions and values. It would not compensate fcr destroying aquatic systems in one of the last large undeveloped tracts remaining in the study area, which. provides an oasis for many species of wildlife. The plan does not replace vernal pools, riparian streams, floodplains or the spectrum of natural rasourca values these areas provide. Also, it would do little to replace the large indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts. The plan would not offset the fragmentation of the riparian corridors. The proposed highway would only provide partial traffic relief for the overall traffic patterns in the greater Nashua area. Other measures of reducing traffic volumes, which do not degrade the environment, may also provide some relief. We continue to be willing to work with your office and the DOT to arrive at other alternatives or combinations of alternatives which may be environmentally acceptable, I relieve, based on the record developed to date, that an unacceptable adverse effect would result from this proposed discharge, particularly to wildlife, and possibly to Water supply. This letter is the first step in the 404 (c) process and offers the Corps of Engineers and DOT the opportunity to consult with EPA about the project. During this consultation period, which is normally 13 days from the date of receipt of this letter, pursuant to 40 C.F.R_ 231.3(a)(2), the Corps and DOT may provide information in response ra EPA's concerns and to demonstrate to EPA r s satisfaction that unacceptable adverse effects will not occur on this site, or to take a corrective action to pravent such impacts. If no such demonstration or corrective action is made, then EPA will proceed to issue a public notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or restrict the use of the wetlands and other wagers at this site for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with this highway project. In accordance with 33 C.F.R. section 323.6, the New England Division nay not issue a permit for this project until final action is taken by EPA under section 404(c). I believe the Corps has worked very hard to not only prOduce a sound Environmental Impact Statement, but to scale rack the original proposal so as to realize meaningful environmental improvements for the project. These collaborative, open and genuine efforts by the Corps in cooperation with New Hampshi-re DOT, -sty office and others to achieve an environmentally acceptable project deserve recognition and praise. so toc do the herculean efforts Congress -man Swett has mounted to balance the transportation needs and environmental impacts of this project. This action is meant neither to diminish those efforts nor to impair the positive working relationship the EPA and the Army Corps have established over the years in jointly administering the Section 404 program in Y;� 03f31!94 10:47 US EFA Fq DII;. BOSTON MA 009 N@W England_ in that same spirit we stand ready to assist in developing tra-.fic manageZent plans •a.nd , at?ler environmentally accaptable alternatives to the current project or combinations of alternat;yes which prcvl-de traffic benefits for the greatar uashua area and which also protect the ,valuable wetlands at the proposed project site. I;Y addition EPA is fully committed to working closely with the carps and NH DDT to identity alternative highway designs to reduce the environmental impact of this project as well as to final and secure additional environmental improvements that could mitigate tY.,e impact of the project as proposed or revised. Tha.-'k you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or if you would like to arrange a meeting, please call me at 6171365--3400 or have your staff contact Doug *,hompson of MY Staff at 617/565-4422. sincerely, Joian R. D Villars Regional Administrator cc: Tonorable Judd Gregg Honorable Robert Stith Honorable Richard Swett Honorable William Zeliff Honorable Stephen Merrill Colonel Brink Miller, Division Engineer, ACDE Commissioner Robert w. Varney, NH DRs Ronald E. Lambertson', Regional Director, USFWS John Meagher, Dir., Wetlands Division, F--A HQ 10: 46 US EPA R; D I U. EUSTOhI 11P 010 y UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRCTi CTION AGENCY J.F. KENNECY FEDERAL_ HUILDING. tit357bN, 14EASSAC}4VSc'T7S 02202-2211 March 31, 1994 Colonel Brink miller, Dfv4sion Engineer U- S . Ar=y Corps of Engineers New England Division 424 Trapel.o Road Waltha=, MA 02254-9149 Dear Colonel Miller: I am writing with regard to the proposed construction of the Nashua -Hudson Circumferential Highway in the greater Nashua, New Hampshire area and the pending section 404 permit application of ti4e New Rampshi,re Department of Transportation (DOT) . Based on the information which is currently available to me, I believe that this nzaJect would cause substantial, severe and unacceptable impacts to valuable wetlands and other aquatic resources. I therefore have decided, under EPA's Glean Water Act 404Cc) authority, to commence the veto process_ Z believe this is the only way to ensure adequate protection of the wetlands, waters, and natural resources in the area or the proposed project at this time. I am doing this Pursuant to regiulations published at 40 C.F.R_ Part 231_ I am taking this action becailse 1 believe that the proposed highway Froul.d cause severe adverse effects on the aquatiC ecosystem, particularly to fish and wildlife. The greater Nashua area - has experienced some of the most severe cumulative loss of aquatic hmbitat in Neur England duriZ19 the last several decades. The direct and indirect iMpacts from the proposed highway would aggravate the severe cumulative loss of habitat and depletion of biod,iversity that has occurred. In addition to my concern about tine magnitude Of trzese adverse impacts, there is a reasonable likelihood that less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives to the project exist, If constructed, the highway would adversely affect the existing wildlifa community by reducing bath the number of individuals and diversity of species. Regionally uncommon species would suffer the most, especially the forest interior and area sensitive animals, those species dependent on wetland ei'-_clsystems, and simaller animals that are either less mobile or depend on vernal pools_ In addition to diminishintx productivity and energy flow in the aquatic system, the highway would also disrupt streams and riparian corridors that are particularl j valuable because of thel*` high productivity and use by wildlife. &AVEM 03%31/94 10.40 US tt'H 1*� DIV. 11U51UPI 111N LI)1j EPA is particularly concerned that one of the last remaining refuges for wildlife in the immediate vicinity would be greatly altered. The rbadway.wouid not only directly destroy over 40 acres of wetlands, it would degrade additional wetlands and destroy a large portion of the surrounding upland habitat that greatly influences the value of the aquatic systems nested in the second Brook basin, One of the last primarily intact ecosystems remaining .in the greater Nashua area. N=arcus -streams and wetlands would be bisected, thereby 'altering the hydrology, disrupting species movement and increasing predation Of Uncommon species- `£T�e hiqhway would fragment numerous wetlands, streams and uplands, and cause impacts well beyond the ,footprint of the fill. The project would also destroy and indirectly impact several vernal pools. Vernal Pools are especially valuable to wildlife, particularly as breeding areas for amphibians. In evaluating the adverse impacts of this project, I am mindful that EPA and the states, having recognized the important environmental resources in the area, have been working to implement a multi -million dollar initiative to protect the aquatic resources of the Merrimack River Watershed. Considerable time, money ,and effort have been expanded during the past three years to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. This project would adversely afi'ect the very resources that EPA has targeted for protection with this watershed initiative. The ,ierrimacic River, which flows north to soutim, dominates the hydrology of the study area and is fed by numerous tributaries flowing east to west. since most of the proposed highway heads north and south, the 13 mile road would inevitably crass and gill a number of tributaries and sub --tributaries to the Merrinack. Moreover, the highway would destroy wetlands which help purity the waters of the Merrimack River and Pennichuck ponds, the two largest drinking water supplies in the study area. Greater amounts of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants of urban runoff, such as lean, oil, and gas, would enter the tributary streams and flow into the Merrimack River. Sedimentation results in turbidity and often t-ansports pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins into the streams, which adversely affects aquatic lire. The highway currently proposed would impact iS surface and groundwater community drinking water sources and add contaminants to these aquatic systems. Stormwater runoff from the highway would degrade bath surface and groundwater systems. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts somewhat, concerns about construction work and long-term problems such as accidents, spills, and lack of maintenance would remain. Secondary development in the watershed, in part spurred by the highway, would worsen these problems. 03/31/94 10:49 U5 EPA FA DIV. BOSTOM MA 012 DOT has proposed a substantial mitigation plan. The poor track record associated with wetland creation projects suggests that the mitigation would likely fall short Of Providing the intended benefits. Even .if successful, the proposed mitigation would not replace these lost functions and values. It would not conmensate for destroying aquatic systems in one of the last large undeveloped tracts remaining in the study area, which provides an oasis for many species of wildlife. The plan does not replace vernal pools, riparian streams, floodplains or the spectrum of natural resource values these areas provide. Also, it would do little to replace the large indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts. The plan Would not offset the fragmentation of the riparian corridors. The proposed highway would only provide partial traffic relief for the overall traffic pattezns in the greater Nashua area. other measures of reducing traffic volumes, which do not degrade the environment, gray also provide some relief. We continue to be willing to wor]c with your office and the DOT to arrive at other alternatives or combinations of alternatives' which iaay be environmentally acceptable. I believe, based on the record developed to date, that an unacceptable adverse effect would result from this proposed discharge, particularly to wildlife, and possibly to water: supply. Tbis.letter is the :first step in the 404(c) process and offers the, Corps of Engineers and DOT the opportunity to consult with EPA about the project. Durinq this consultation period, which is normally 15 days from the data of receipt of this letter, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 231.3(a)(2), the Corps and DOT may provide information in response to EP:A's concerns and to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that unacceptable adverse effects will not occur on this site, or to take a corrective action to prevent such impacts. If no such demonstration or corrective action is made, then EPA. will proceed to issue a public: notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or restrict the use of the wetlands and other waters at this site for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with this highway project. In accordance with 33 C.F.R. section 323.6, the New England Division may not issue a permit for this project until final action is taken by EPA under section 404(C). I believe the Corps has worked very hard to not only produce a sound Environmental Impact statement, but to scale luck the original proposal so as to realize meaningful environmental improvements for the project_ These collaborative., open and genuine efforts by the Corps is cooperation with New Hampshire DOT, my office and others to achieve an environmentally acceptable project deserve recognition and praise. So too do'the herculean efforts congressman Swett has mounted to balance the transportati-on needs and environmental impacts of this project. This action is meant neither to diminish those efforts nor to impair the positive working relationship the EPR and the Army Corps have established over the years in jointly administering the Section 404 program in New England. 0: r31 134 1 J: 5© US EPA Fn U I V. EQSTGN I W 01 c I" that same spirit we stand ready to assist in developing traffic management plans and other environmentally accaPtable alternatives to the current project or combinations of alternatives which �'.r? provide traffic benefits for the greater Nashua area and which also a Protect the valuahle wetlands at the proposed project site. In addition LFA is tally cc=itted to working closely with the Corps and NH COT to identify alternative highway designs to reduce the enviro=ental impact of this project as well as to find and secure additional environmental imprcvemerts that could taitigate tj': .impact of the project as proposed 4r revised. I Thank you for your prompt attention to this oat ter. please p , tingleif you ham any questions or if you would like to arran Call me at 6I.7%565-3400 or have your staff conge a tact �meeting, oug ngp le of MY staff at 617/565-4422. Sincerely, r John P_ DeVi.liars Rc !gional Achninistrator GC: H=Orable Judd Gregg Honorable Robert. Smith Honorable Richard Swett, Honorable William zel.iff Honorable Stephen Herrill. commissioner Charles P. O'Leary ,Jr.r Nn DOT Comtn.issicner Robert W- Varney, NH DES Ronald E_ Lambertson, Regional Director, USF-?7s John lleagher, Dir. , Wetlands Division, EPA HQ FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:07 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 ATTACHMENT 13 J�teo sr��s >tA UNITED STATES ENVIRONhIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 $ JOHN R KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING BOSTON, MASSAC:HUSETTS 02203.0001 PRO�G March 6, 1998 Frederick Downs, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 William F. Lawless, P.E., Chief Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 PAGE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR VT STATE PR(1GRAM UNIT RE: Rutland Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, EPA ERP Number F-FHW-B40082-VT Dear Mr. Downs and Mr. Lawless: The Environmental Protection Agency -New England Region (EPA) has reviewed the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)/Vermont .agency of Transportation's (VAOT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the consideration of various alternatives to reduce congestion and delays and improve safety along US Route 4 and US Route 7 in the Rutland, Vermont area. We submit the following comments in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to the DEIS, the current traffic congestion problems are the result of local travel of citizens to work, school, and shopping; and this congestion is expected to worsen over time. The DEIS indicates that only approximately 18 percent of the traffic is through traffic. Based on the information provided, seasonal visitors exacerbate the problem but are not the leading cause of congestion. The DEIS investigates seven alternatives as possible solutions to the traffic congestion including No -Action (No -Build); Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TS&M'DM); Upgrade of the Existing Route 7 Corridor; and four bypass alternatives. As you know, these were identified during the scoping and screening process under NEPA and in conjunction with Phase I of the Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology. The DEIS concludes that the Upgrade and all of the Bypass alternatives are capable of meeting project goals along the US Route 4 and US Route 7 travel corridors. Recycls&Recyclable . Pnntad with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 1o0% Racycled Praper (a0% Postconsun-er) FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:07 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE ••2- At the request of the FHWA, EPA provided preliminary comments on chapters one through four of a preliminary Draft of the DEIS in July, 199;. At that time we offered comments with respect to air quality, hazardous waste, and wetland issues. We have reviewed the DEIS from the standpoir,;t of how each alternative would help to remedy the identified traffic problems and how they could affect the natural and built environment, especially with respect to wetland resources, habitat impacts, water supply, and air quality. Our primary concerns focus on the direct and potential secondary impacts of the bypass alternatives under consideration and the apparent problems we believe the bypass alternatives would face in complying with EPA's 404 (b) (1) guidelines. 'This letter identifies our specific concerns and the issues we believe should be addressed prior to the completion of the NEPA/Section 404 process. Traffic Analysis Issues As you know, several commentors at the FHWA./VAOT public hearing questioned whether the traffic analysis presented in the DEIS accurately portrays existing traffic conditions. They referenced recent traffic studies for the Rutland region that show reductions in traffic problems in the study area over the past few years. We are concerned that the DEIS relies on dated studies to define the traffic problem that the project is intended to resolve. We therefore believe the FEIS should consider all current, relevant traffic dataa generated since completion of the studies referenced in the DEIS and explain how that &a.ta affects modeling predictions. Moreover, we share local concerns that the solutions develop,E:d to ameliorate the local traffic congestion be appropriate in scale 'to a realistically identified 'problem. According to the DEIS, viable solutions for thi.,; project include TSM/TDM measures. We find it encouraging that if the TSM alternative is comloined with TDM measures the TDM participation rate needed to achieve LOS C or D at the most: critical intersections in the study area (Appendix E, page 3-29) only requires a doubling of existing participation rates. It is clear that there is local interest in solving the local traffic problems. We encourage FHWAJVAOT to nurture this interest through active support of local and regional policy development conducive to TDM growth in the Rutland area. Wetland Impacts6ection 404 Issues Direct /indirect Impacts According to the DEIS, the No -Build, TSMTi'DM and Upgrade Existing alternatives would not result in any impacts to wetlands. On the otheir hand, all of the bypass alternatives would have impacts on aquatic resources and wetlands. The construction of any bypass alternative would result in direct and indirect impacts to forested, scrub shrub, and wet meadow wetlands and the elimination of numerous segments of brooks acrid streams. FILE Pao.352 04/09 '99 16:0 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.—OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 4 -3- The Powerline Alternative would fill 23,55 acres of wetland. The affected wetland types in this corridor vary from wet meadow, forested wetland and emergent marsh to scrub -shrub wetland. The largest potential impact (approximately 9.21 acres) under this alternative would be to an area dominated by Phragmites with interspersed areas of scrub shrub and forested wetland north of Perkins Road. The 1100' Contour Alternative would fill 4.82 acres of wetland. Approximately 2.25 acres of fill is proposed in streams that are tributaries and headwaters of Tenney Brook and the Tenney Brook forested wetland complex to the west.Other wetland impacts are in the same wetland corridor as the Powerline alternative with primary impacts to wet meadow and scrub shrub wetland. The Westerly Alternative would fill 1.81 acres of wetland. The impacted wetlands along this route vary from forested (along the stream edge) to emergent open marsh (at the shallow end of Muddy Pond) and floodplain wetland associated with the East Creek crossing near the existing Route 7 roadway. The Wheelerville Alternative, the longest bypass option (13.4 miles) with the highest construction budget ($183.5 million) would fill .96 acre of wetland. Affected wetlands along this alignment consist of a series of intermittent stream channels and a wetland depression in the mountainous areas above Wheelerville Road. Although the -potential wetland impacts of this bypass alternative are less than all other build ;alternatives except for the Upgrade, this alternative has great potential to cause significant direct and indirect impacts to wildlife through habitat fragmentation. Specifically, this alternative would directly affect large areas of existing deer winter range identified by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR). More importantly, this alternative would effectively isolate approximately 6000 acres of remote, wooded, roadless forest habitat utilized by blal.-k bear. In light of the severity of the impacts to habitat, we recommend that the Wheelerville ,Alternative be rejected under the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines due to serious environmental consequences. Also, serious questions remain about the efficacy of mitigation for such significant habitat fragmentation. As you know, in our July 1997 comments we :recommended that the DEIS include an analysis of habitats, such as vernal pools, that have the potential for supporting amphibian populations. Our position with respect to this issue has not changed, and we are disappointed that the DEIS did not attempt to address these habitats in a comprehensive fashion. Although often relatively small in size, these areas are critically important breeding habitats for amphibians and are utilized by other wildlife including turtles and waterfowl. The fish -free waters of the vernal pool create preferred breeding habitat for a large number of amphibians; this in turn attracts hawks, owls, snakes, turtles, waterfowl and predatory mammals. Young amphibians dispersing from vernal pools in late summer or autumn distribute mun:h of the productivity of these temporary ponds into upland systems thereby supporting important terrestrial food webs. FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:08 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-5EP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 5 In Amphibian and turtle populations that may reside in the highway corridor are particularly vulnerable to new roadway construction because they are secretive and rely on a variety of habitats, including upland corridors, for long term survival. The preparation of biological surveys in the field to determine breeding habitats and use by these species will help to avoid and minimize impacts, and can be essential to designing an effective mitigation plan. We recommend that the FEIS include a more detailed analysis of cumulative and secondary aquatic and non -aquatic impacts associated with the Westerly, Powerline, 1100' Contour and Wheelerville alignments, in particular, location. A of the Westerly Alternative, Location I and 3 of the Powerline Alternative, and Location D and L of the 1100' Contour Alternative. The wetland impacts at these locations, though relatively small in acreage, appear to be more vulnerable to cumulative and secondary impacts (as discussed later) because of surrounding high value aquatic habitat and their predominantly undisturbed environmental settings. We recommend, for purposes of 404 and NEPA, that the FEIS include analysis of habitat fragmentation effects as a result of new roadway corridor construction. This information is of value for the identification of potential LEDPA,'s, avoidance and minimization of impacts, and consideration of compensatory mitigation measures. AIternatives In order for a permit to be issued, a proposed project must, among other things, comply with Section 23 0. 10 of the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (the Guidelines) of the Clean Water Act. The Guidelines provide the substantive requirements to be used in the protection of wetlands and other special aquatic sites. According to the Guidelines, the following requirements must be satisfied before a Section 404 permit for the placement of fill material in wetlands can be issued for a project: there must be no practicable, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action; the activity must not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards or jeopardize endangered or threateried species; the activity must not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States; and all practicable and appropriate steps must be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Further, the Guidelines establish a presumption, which the applicant has the opportunity to rebut, that for non -water -dependent projects, such as the proposed highway improvements, a practicable alternative to the filling of wetland exists. The project purpose, as defined by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 evaluation, indicates that the goal of the project is to allow for the safe and efficient flow of vehicular traffic east and west along US Route 4, and north and south along. Route 7 within and around the greater Rutland. As described earlier, the DEIS explores alternatives that involve direct wetland/aquatic impacts ranging from no impact (No -Build and Upgrade Alternatives) to 23.55 acres (Powerline Alternative). The DEIS, however, does not suggest a preferred alternative. All of the bypass alternatives would result in direct and indirect impacts to the aquatic environment and adjacent undeveloped upland areas_ Based on the information presented in the DEIS, the Upgrade Alternative (and any other non -fill alternative) is practicable because it satisfies the project purpose, and it causes less damage to the aquatic environment than the bypass alternatives. FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:09 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA'':617 565 4940 PAGE 6 .5- We acknowledge the concerns raised by some Rutland residents and business owners about the impacts of the Upgrade, as defined in the DEIS., on properties adjacent to the road. Unlike the steps the applicant has taken to analyze the impacts associated with the bypass alternatives, and ways to minimize these impacts, comparable impact avoidance and minimization efforts have not apparently been made in the Upgrade in order to address concerns raised by residents and property owners. For example, we suggest that the FHWANAOT study modified Upgrade alternatives that implement all practicable traffic improvement measures (signalization improvements, turning lanes, road widening, eliminations of excessive curb cuts) while simultaneously reducing identified impacts to I:iroperty along the 1.5 mile Rutland City corridor. At least one modified upgrade alternative should evaluate the effectiveness of reconstruction solely within the existing right of way. Additionally, specific information about mitigation measures for impacts associated with the Upgrade would help to clarify the complete impact of this alternative. Based on the information currently available, EPA supports the Upgrade alternative (or a modified upgrade) on existing alignment under NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the following reasons: The DEIS clearly explains that the majority of the area's traffic and congestion problems result from local travel patterns. According to the DEIS, approximately 80% of the traffic is not through traffic or visitor-r+:lated; rather it is predominantly citizens of the region going to work, shopping, school, etc. in Rutland.' Building the more environmentally harmful bypass will not, therefore, solve the local traffic congestion. In contrast, the'less damaging upgrade (designed to minimize local impacts) will address the local congestion problem. ® We believe that the FHWA/VAOT shovlld implement and monitor all reasonable TSM/TDM measures before committing significant funds towards infrastructure development. The benefits of these measures, in combination with a modified upgrade alternative (described above), may effev-tively resolve the majority of the congestion problems in the study area for an exterided period of time. TSM measures alone go a long way toward meeting the project purpose. The traffic performance goals for the year 2020 were set at LOS D or better for all approaches at modeled intersections. According to diie DEIS, the 2020 No -Build Alternative would have ten signalized intersections with 1L,OS worse than D while the TSM Alternative would have three signalized intersections with LOS worse than D. The Upgrade Alternative would provide a LOS of D or better in 2020 on all approaches of all modeled signalized intersections. Based on the :modeling, TSM measures singly or in combination with an Upgrade, appear to achieve the project purpose and serve as adequate solutions ' Appendix E, page 2-17 FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:10 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-DEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 7 M into the foreseeable future. The impacts of the bypass alternatives ,sire worse than the impacts of a modified upgrade. Bypass construction would cause direct and secondary impacts to wetland ecosystems within the undisturbed portions of the bypass corridors that provide important habitat, cover and food for a wide variety of aquatic species and wildlife such as mammals and songbirds. Undeveloped upland habitat within each bypass corridor and adjacent to wetlands within each corridor provides protective areas for wildlife movement, further increasing the value of protecting these! wetlands. More broadly, virtually all wetland dependent species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians in New England need upland habitat to survive during some portion of their life cycle --feeding, breeding, locating winter habitat, and escaping pr:dation. Moreover, many of these species travel along upland corridors in regular movement patterns. For such species, a wetland's value depends heavily upon its connection to undisturbed adjacent upland habitat. Bypass construction would inevitably lead to &mondary impacts through the disturbance of adjacent upland habitat. Mitigation/Compensation of Impacts to Wetlands Aquatic Resources and Wildlife Habitat Should unavoidable wetland impacts remain after completion of the alternatives analysis, a comprehensive compensatory mitigation plan would be required. EPA staff met with the resource agencies in August, 1994 to review potential mitigation sites. The sites reviewed at that time may be suitable to mitigate some functional losses, such as water quality and nutrient retention, but they may not appropriately mitigate for fragmentation of wildlife habitat. We understand that a more thorough analysis of mitigation options may be premature until there is a selection of a preferred alternative. Once a LEDPA has been selected, a compensautory mitigation plan should be developed for any unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. (As noted above, a TSM and/or Upgrade alternative would incur little or no such adverse impacts and thus would not require a mitigation plan.) In general, the mitigation plan should aim to replace or offset the unavoidable direct and indirect harm to the aquatic resource: functions and values. The clearest approach for doing so often leads to pursuing opportunities :Eor wetland restoration or, in some cases, creation. In certain circumstances, preservation of wetland and associated upland habitat may also figure prominently in the final mitigation plan. Should wetland creation become a feature of the plan, we recommend that the'compensatory mitigation plan include a site analysis to include existing conditions (habitat values, etc.), soil testing for appropriate substrate, ground and/or surface water monitoring (supply and water quality), presence of contaminants, site access points (unwanted intrusion), and compatibility with the landscape setting. The mitigation plan should feature preliminary design drawings and specifications with stated goals for the replacea,nent of the unavoidable loss of wetland/aquatic functions and values. Moreover, design of w.-tland creation sites should include details about soils (excavation, grading and importation of suitable hydric soils), hydrologic regime FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:10 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE S -7- (predictions of the range of fluctuating: hydrology over typical growing season), and vegetation plans (identify sources, planting densities and species). Plans should include methods for monitoring, reporting, remedial action, and should address long-term ownership and management of the mitigation site. Secondary/indirect Impacts As we stated in our comments after reviewing the Preliminary DEIS, secondary effects stemming from the bypass alternatives under consideration concern us as much as the potential direct and indirect effects discussed above, yet they remain substantially undocumented in the DEIS. With regard to indirect impacts, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require the EIS analysis to include growth -inducing changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate. "Impacts" includes ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative'. The regulations further define cumulative impacts as "....the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but: collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."' The indirect and cumulative impact analysis is especially important in an EIS evaluating a bypass proposal given that bypasses and other highways on new locations are known to contribute to changes in development patterns and land use. To varying degrees, the construction of the byl,-)ass alternatives to "solve" the current and projected traffic congestion problems in the City of Rutland has the potential to have a "growth inducing effect" that will potentially "induce changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems" (especially along undeveloped portions of the bypass alignments)'. These changes in turn could lead to more traffic problems such as those the project is intended to solve. Clearly, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project ultimately depend upon how the traffic problem is to be resolved (i.e. upgraaie or bypass alternatives), the proposed bypass route, the location and number of proposed interchanges (nodes) to each limited access bypass under consideration, and environmental conditions encountered along each bypass alignment. It is well known that the siting of the interchanges can catalyze secondary development and significant land use changes. The DEIS acknowledges as much, explaining that the bypass alternatives on new rights -of -way would tend to stimulate development at the various access '40 CFR, Sec. 1508.8 3 40 CFR., Sec. 1508.7 4 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.8 (b) FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:11 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FAQ;:617 565 4940 PAGE 9 -8- points (nodes) to the bypass'. We believe that the EIS analysis should be expanded to more fully describe the impacts of the bypass access interchanges as well as the induced growth impacts or land use changes such as residential and comraercial development that the bypass alternatives may catalyze. Water Supply The DEIS discloses that water supply wells might be contaminated by roadway deicing salts and suggests mitigating such risks by installing closed roadway runoff drainage systems. Specific information about the design (basic design concepts and possible discharge points) or effectiveness of such a system is lacking in thi:: DEIS. A quantitative analysis should be performed to determine the likely effectiveness of such a system, and it should include all zones of the wellhead protection areas, not just zone one. In addition, the FEIS should describe what measures would be necessary should the wells become contaminated by roadway runoff including temporary or permanent replacement of the affected supply with an alternate water source of equal or better quality and reliability. EPA supports the installation of snow berms to prevent groundwater contamination from roadway runoff under all bypass scenarios. The DEIS does not adequately consider the impact of the various alternative bypass alignments on the quantity of groundwater recharge in the Rutland area. Table S.I, Impact Summary Matrix, shows that all of the bypass alternatives would result in the reduction of the groundwater recharge area for a public community water s»pply well. Even though the indicated reduction percentages are small, they may still create a supply shortage for a well that is operating at maximum yield and thereby requires maximized recharge to meet water supply demand. The FEIS should describe the frill effect of reducing recharge areas to wells along the bypass routes and what measures would be necessary to protect the affected water supply systems from shortages as a result of the construction. The I=EIS should also fully consider the impacts of roadway construction and operation on non -community water systems. Additionally, it would be easier to analyze impacts to water supplies if the FEIS were to include a map that clearly shows all water supplies and their associated source protection areas. Conclusions In accordance with our national system, we rare this project as EC-2 ("Environmental Concerns -Insufficient Information"); please sre the attached sheet for an explanation of this rating. Until the issues discussed above conci;:ming the establishment of a LEDPA are resolved, we believe that projects other than the Upgrade alternative (or a modified upgrade) do not comply with the EPA Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and should not receive a permit. We believe that additional interagency coordination prior to the development of a FEIS can help 5 Pages 4-3 and 4-4 of the DEIS. FILE PJo.352 04/09 '99 16:11 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP F4't:617 565 4940 PAGE 1 -9- the FHWA/VAOT to develop environmentally acceptable and effective solutions to Rutland's traffic problems. Please contact Timothy Tirru nermann of our Office of Environmental Review at 617/565-3279 with any questions you may have about our comments on the DEIS or if you would like to meet with us to discuss our comments and concerns in greater detail. Sincerely, John P. DeVillars Regional Administrator Attachment cc: Mark Richter U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region 1 P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 Mark Ljungvall Special Projects Program Manager State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5001 Frank DelGiudice Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic District 424.Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 Gina Campoli Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Center Building, 3rd Floor Waterbury, VT 05671 FILE No.252 04/09 '99 16:12 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAI:617 565 4940 PAGE 11 -10- Pearl Young Office of Federal Activities United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2252 A Washington, DC 20460 Bill Neidermyer United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ralph Pill Marketplace, 4'" Floor 22 Bridge Street Concord, NH 03301-4901 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:12 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FA :617 565 4940 PAGE 12 SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION Environmental Impact of the Action 1-0--Lack of Objections The EPA review has not identified any potential impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC --Environmental Concerns The EPA review has identified environmental imlpacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EO--Environmental Objections The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative}. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory The EPA review has identified adverse environme.;ntal impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality_ EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. Adequacy of the lmogct Statement Category 1--Adequate, EPA believes that draft EIS adequately sets 1forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action_ No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but 'the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category 2--Insufficlent Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that arei within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3--inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft Elt adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are oaf such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised '�draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candi';date for referral to the CEO, FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:12 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 13 Technical Appendix Air Quality Based on the air quality analyses presented in the Draft EIS, all of the build alternatives can be implemented and operated without creating new exceedences of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for either: ozone car carbon monoxide. The No -build alternative has the potential to create new exceedences' of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide. Therefore, if the No -build is the preferr.6d action we recommend that the FHWANAOT explore mitigation measures to prevent these modeled carbon monoxide exceedences. As we stated in our June, 1997 comments, the State of Vermont is attainment for all six of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs), hence, conformity does not apply. Language in the DEIS referring to conformity 1_,rocedures of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 should be corrected. As you may recall, in June, 1997 we requested that a mesoscale analyses be performed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO.) for the time frame when the project alternatives are predicted to be .implemented, traffic is normalized and full motor vehicle impacts can be evaluated. The DEIS fails to evaluate air quality impacts in this operational time period. Only 1992 baseline and 2020 design year analyses were conducted. Furthermore, our June, 1997 comments requested that the result of the mesoscale analyses be disclosed as actual values for VOC and NOx in tons per stammer day, and CO in tons per winter day, not just as a percentage of the 1992 baseline of air quality emissions. Because the DEIS expresses the results of the mesoscale analyses as a percentage change, we are unable to associate specific pollutant burdens with each of the proposed build alternatives, and more importantly, to determine the significance of the emission increases or reductions. It should be noted that EPA recently replaced the previous 1-hour ozone standard with a new 8- hour standard. The new standard is set at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and defines the new standard as a "concentration -based" form, specifically the 3-year average of the annual 4th- highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations. In addition, EPA replaced the previous secondary ozone standard (to protect the environment, including agricultural crops, national parks, and forests) with a standard identical to the new primary ozone standard. The Agency also revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) by establishing annual. and 24-hour PM2.5 standards and by changing the form of the existing 24-hour PM10 standard. The existing annual PMIO standard is retained; however, for the revised PM NAAQS,i the standard conditions of temperature and pressure adjustment have been removed. These new standards became effective September 16, 1997. At the end of December 1997, EPA released a list of counties where the 1-hour national ambient air quality standard for ground -level ozone (smog) was revoked. The i -hour standard was revoked for counties that have not measured a violation of the 1-hour ozone standard over the "I'A - I FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:13 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 14 most recently available three year period of time (generally using air quality data from 1994- 1996). The list included all fourteen counties in Vermont, which at the time were classified as attainment for the l -hour ozone standarrd. Although the 1-hour standard no longer applies after March 17, 1998 in these counties, the new, mo:re protective 8-hour ozone standard does apply. in the year 2000 EPA will formally determine which areas of the country do not meet its new 8- hour ozone standard and "designate" them as " nonattainment." According to the DEIS, the Woodstock Ave_/US Route 7 & Terrill Street -West Street/US Route 7 intersection, and the Allen StreetlUS:,' Route 7 & Park StreetlUS Route 7 intersection, are the most congested with the worst LOS rating and highest traffic volume along the corridor. We note that the CO modeling effort for these two intersections (under the no -build condition) showed violations of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide in I992 as well as in 2020. Specifically, Receptor A13 associated with the Woodstock Ave./US Route 7 & Terrill Street -West Street/US Route 7 intersection has a modeled/predicted CO level of.8.6 ppm- Because this value is within ten percent of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide (9 ppm) EPA recommends that reasonable and ;feasible mitigation measures be evaluated in the FEIS for the Woodstock Ave./US Route 7 & Terrill Stri!et-West Street/US Route 7 intersection. Additionally, the Upgrade, Westerly, and Whe:elerville alternatives, also have receptors with modeled/predicted CO levels within ten percennt of the eight -hour NAAQS. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures for these ;impacts should be evaluated in the FEIS for these locations. Water Quality 1. The stream water quality samplingfesults (Table SR6.3 of the Special Report) indicate water quality criteria exceedences under existing coi..l;ditions for several heavy metals (copper, lead, and zinc) in highway runoff to surface waters including Mendon Brook, East Creek, Muddy Pond, and Tenney Brook. Specific comparisons using these data should be based upon the specific Vermont water quality criteria and not upon existing conditions. In addition, each of the bypass alternatives should not prohibit surface waters from meeting criteria for these metals according to Vermont Water Quality Standards. 2. Concentrations of pollutants in the storm water were predicted with the 1990 FHWA model and a comparison of existing and proposed conditions given in Tables SR6.8, 6.9, and 6.11. For a few stream sites, such as Mendon and Tenney Brooks, the modeled concentrations are less than the ambient water quality criteria for hopper l;,y a very small magnitude (0.001 or .002 mg/1)_ We believe that the uncertainty inherent in modeling results, the use of mean concentrations rather than a maximum, and average flow rates in the equation on page 6-15 warrant the collection and analysis of additional water quality data for the proposed build conditions. Additionally, it is unclear why the Chapter 3 table, Groundwater quality of PCWS Well, is included in the explanation of variables QS and CS in the runoff equation on this page. 3_ The DEIS indicates on page 4-116;that the project alternatives would cross several streams TA-2 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA::617 565 4940 PAGE 15 :i classified as Class A Waters. Vermont's Wat{.:r Quality Standards state that the management objectives for Class A Waters are to achieve and maintain water with a very high level of water quality that have significant ecological value. The HIS should provide additional details on construction activities and measures to avoid impacts, especially those related to storm water runoff, for each of the bypass alternatives that cross Class A waters. TA-3 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S./E.P.A.—OEP FA;:617 565 4940 PAGE 16 'x UNITED STATES ENVIRONIMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r - ��/� RE:G10N I JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING �rRL ng65tiGS BOSTON, MASSA{::HUSETTS 02203-0001 July 10, 1997L` OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Frederick H, Downs, Division Administrator j u 1.- 1997 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region One P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 RE: Comments on Rutland Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Preliminary Copy), Project Number FEGC 419-3(44) Dear Mr. Downs, This letter and the attached Technical Appendix summarizes our general comments on preliminary chapters one through four of the preliminary I;lraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Rutland Bypass. According to the DEIS; the project is designed to reduce congestion and delays and improve safety along U.S. Route 4 and U.S. Route 7 in the City of Rutland and the Towns of Rutland and Mendo:n, Vermont. The comments offered below and in the attached appendix are intended to help you improve the DEIS by providing a more complete disclosure of impacts on the environment. Ou:r suggestions range from substantive questions on the content of the DEIS to specific suggested text changes. Our technical review of the preliminary information focused on air quality, hazardous waste and wetland issues. Please note that these comments on the preliminary chapters do not substitute for the formal review and comment we are required to do after the DEIS is published. Wetland/Section 404 Issues Alternatives Considered The project alternatives considered in the preliminary DEIS appear consistent with those alternatives identified during Phase I of the Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology process. The preliminary DEIS, however, lacks an analysis of partial build alternatives both in relation to TSM/TDM and upgrade options and did not include Appendix E, .F and Special Reports 6 and 8 (Traffic Report, Environmental Consequences of Southeast segments, Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology), The DEIS should also describe and compare the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation for both the two and four lane designs. We look forward to reviewing this information in the published D1EiIS. —ifi, f/ ,.n r, t. b. n;) mn-4 Mlr — 1/S»-C Oe wrinA Aan.ar IA'1e1 0—t—I'mArl FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 17 2 Impacts to Water bodies and Aquatic Habitats_ The written wetland assessment of acreage, functions and values of the alternatives provided on pages 4-119 through 4-135 is a good start. We recommend, however, that the published DEIS include an analysis regarding habitats that have; the potential for supporting amphibian/reptile populations. Amphibian and turtle populations that may reside in the highway corridor are particularly vulnerable to new roadway constni.ction because they are difficult to spot and they rely on a variety of habitats. Additional biologiicai surveys to determine breeding habitats and use by these species will help minimize and avoid impacts from construction and mitigation efforts. EPA is willing to provide technical assistance and guidance with respect to these surveys as necessary. Additionally, we recommend that the DEIS include a detailed analysis of cumulative and secondary wetland/waterway impacts associated with the Westerly, Powerline, 1100' Contour and Wheelerville alignments. Secondary impacts include those resulting from additional development and other land use changes stimulated by the access provided by the new highway alignment. Particular attention should also be paid to location A of the Westerly Alternative, locations I and J of the Powerline Alternative, and locations D and L of the 1100' Contour Alternative. The proposed wetland impacts at these locations, though relatively small in acreage, appear to be more vulnerable to cumulative and secondary impacts because of high value surrounding aquatic habitat and a relatively undisturbed environmental setting. Finally, EPA believes the DEIS should analyze the environmental impacts of habitat fragment,a;tion associated with any new roadway corridors. Wetland Mitigation section (page 4-134) The potential mitigation sites referenced in Chapter 4 are the result of an August 1994 interagency meeting. While these sites may be suitable to mitigate some functional losses, such as water quality and nutrient retention, they may not be: appropriate for other functions such as wildlife/aquatic habitat. The DEIS should explore the functional capabilities of the mitigation sites to the extent possible prior to the selection of a preferred alternative. Air Quality Our technical comments and requests for additional information are included in the attached Technical Appendix. Hazardous Waste Our comments (primarily editorial in nature) are provided in the attached Technical Appendix. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary Rutland DEIS. We look forward to reviewing the published DEIS pursuant to cur responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Please feel free to contact FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:15 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAh:617 565 4940 PAGE lc Timothy Timmermann of my staff at 617/565-]�279 with any questions concerning our comments on the Preliminary DEIS. Sincerely, *w"7 Elizabeth A, Higgins Director, Office of Environmental Review Attachment cc: Mark .Richter, Area Engineer US DOT, FHWA Region 1 RO. Box 568 Montpelier, VT 05601 Lynne Hamjian, USEPA Beth Alafat, USEPA Betsy Davis, USEPA Donald Cooke, USEPA FILE No.S52 0449 '99 16:15 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-0EP FA;:617 565 4940 PAGE 19 4 Teehnic;al Appendix Wetland Issues 1. For future reference, we recommend that the compensatory mitigation plan (after all avoidance and minimization has occurred) include a site ,analysis to include existing conditions (habitat values, etc,), soil testing for appropriate substrate, ground and/or surface water monitoring (supply and water quality), presence of contarninants, site access points (unwanted intrusion), and compatibility with the landscape. The mitigatic-n plan should have preliminary design drawings and specifications with stated goals for the replacement of the unavoidable loss of wetland/aquatic functions and values. Design of wetland creation sites should include details about soils (excavation, grading and importation of suitable hydric soils), hydrologic regime (range of fluctuating hydrology over typical growing season predicted), and vegetation plans (identify sources, planting densities and species). The plans should also include methods for monitoring and reporting, remedial action and address long-term ownership and management. Air Quality 1, Appendix C and Appendix E should be submitted to EPA for review so we can evaluate the methodology and assumptions of the air quality analyses. 2, Technical Support Documentation should b,-. submitted that contains sample input and output files for both the MOBILESa and the CAL3Q13C Version 2 modeling runs, This information should be submitted to the EPA and the State Air Agency with additional copies available to the public for review, 3, The State of Vermont is in attainment for all six of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs); therefore transportation conformity requirements do not apply to the project. Page 4-136 should therefore be revised to correct tl,;e statements about conducting "a conformity type analysis" and "meeting two of three criteria for conformity." 4. The mesoscale and microscale air quality analyses provided in the preliminary DEIS are required under NEPA for full disclosure of environmental impacts. Additional mesoscale analyses should be performed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO) for the time frame "when the project alternatives are 1_,redicted to be implemented, traffic is normalized and full motor vehicle impacts can be evaluated," This time frame for analysis is in addition to the 1992 base year and the 2020 future design years already analyzed. The results of the mesoscale analyses should be disclosed as actual values for VOC and NOx in tons per summer day, and CO in tons per winter day, instead of as a percentage of the 1992 baseline of air quality emissions. 5, The preliminary DEIS describes modeled violations of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide in 1992, the base year, as well as f6r the 2020 No -build alternative. NAAQS exceedances in the project area should be thrc�ughly addressed in the DEIS, and should include FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:16 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 494C� PAGE 20 3 VT DEC's view on whether each CO modeled exceedance actually occurred or is likely to occur. The DEIS should also present information to allow EPA to determine if the second or third highest CO concentrations modeled for the No -build alternative also exceed the NAAQS. 6. The DEIS should describe the criteria used to select the roadway intersections for analysis; which intersections were analyzed for CO; and the criteria for selecting modeling receptors. (Page 4-136 states that a detailed description of the methodologies used can be found in Appendix C which we did not receive for review). 7. EPA recommends that the DEIS include tables to depict a comparison of the one -hour and eight -hour CO concentration at specific receptor locations as modeled for each alternative including the no -build. For example. - No -Build Upgrade TS;NA/TDM Westerly Powerline 1100' Contour Wheelerville One -hour CO Concentration Receptor 3 15.2 Receptor 7 174 15.4 13,8 13.7 15.1 Receptor 9 Receptor 13 15.6 13.8 Eight -hour CO concentration Receptor 3 8.3 Receptor 7 9.6 - 8,4 7.5 7.5 8.3 A completed table would clearly summarize th,e CO microscale analysis and allow for efficient comparison of each alternative at a specific receptor location/intersection, The current strategy of reporting the highest CO concentration for each alternative at two intersections does not allow for an adequate comparison amongst alternatives. At this point in time we cannot determine whether Appendix C contains sufficient air quality modeling data to allow for the comparison of air quality impacts of the various alternatives, 8. The DEIS should analyze the air quality impact of the alternatives on affected roadway intersections within the project area. The best way to analyze these intersections is through a screening procedure where the top ranked intersections (change/highest traffic volumes, as well as worst Level -Of -Service) are modeled in accordance with EPA's "Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway intersections." Chapter 4 of the Preliminary DEIS discusses the modeled air quality results with respect to higl-lest predicted CO concentrations on US Route 7, As stated previously, a review of Appendix C will allow us to determine which intersections were actually modeled, the criteria for selecting interrsections and receptor/modeled locations, and the methodology, parameters and assumptions that went into the modeling effort. FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:16 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA :617 565 4940 PAGE 21 i 6 9, Intersections which have modeled/predicted CO levels within ten percent of the eight -hour NAAQS should be evaluated for reasonable and feasible mitigation measures in the DEIS. The DEIS should identify the mitigation measures that will be required at those locations. 10, We recommend that Figure 3,29 be modif,ed to reflect locations modeled for CO as opposed to the current indication by the figure title and figure legend that the sites Al through A16 are "air quality monitor sites." The narrative on page :3-74 states that "Figure 3.29 illustrates the location of the proposed air quality modeling (and noisy,' receptor) sites for the assessment of impacts related to the proposed roadway." Similar corrections should also be made to Figure 4.64, which, in addition to Air Quality Monitoring Sites Al through A16, includes Air Quality Monitoring Sites A601, A610, A619 and A634. 11. We recommend that the phrase "does not include background", associated with National Ambient Air Quality Standard, be removed from the notes associated with Table 4.18 and Table 4,19. Hazardous Waste 1. On page 3-78, the last sentence should read:, "The identification and characterization study can help identify areas where there is and/or there was possible threat to human health and the environment." 2. On page 3-79, paragraph 1, sentence 3 should read, "As such, this type of inspection cannot be expected to reveal all hazardous material, hazardous waste generated or conditions that might be present in the project area." 3. The DEIS should incorporate current data from the listings (National Priorities List, RCRIS and CERCLA databases) researched for the preliminary DEIS. 4. Clarify documented environmental concerns on page 3-7, 9 paragraph 5, sentence 3, 5. On page 3-83, paragraph 4, sentence 1, strike out RCRA listing and replace with Resource Conservation and Recovery Information Systems (RCRIS) and delete sentence two. RCRIS is a database for identifying facilities in the RCRA universe, the database is not an indicator of whether or not a facility is in compliance with the RCRA regulations. In sentence 2, delete, "it indicates the facility is complying with federal environmental regulations and might be a potential source of contamination," 6. Chapter 4 refers only to State -listed hazardous waste sites; therefore, the DEIS should include a sentence explaining that the state hazardous waste sites are listed on the RCRIS report. 1.Q What is your name and occupation? LA My name is Bernard X. Chenette and I am President of. Chenette of Montpelier, Vermont. ATTACHMENT 5I PRE -FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BERNARD X. CHEj E_ I7F, -PE. MBL Associates # 4CO948-EB November 21, 1994 o fTp NOV 2 2 199 2.Q What services are offered by Chenette Engineering, Inc.? 2.A Our services include a wide range of Civil and Environmental Engineering including land planning and development, water supply, wastewater disposal and solid waste. We are involved in all phases of permitting, planning, design and construction supervision. 3.A Please describe your education and professional experience. 3.A My education includes an Associates Degree from Vermont Technical College in 1969 and a Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering from Northeastern University in 1973. I have been a Registered Professional Engineer in Vermont since 1977. Over the past 21 years I have assisted with the planning, permitting and design of a number of residential and commercial/industrial subdivisions in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. 4.Q Have you testified previously under Criterion 8 for Act 250? 4.A Yes, I assisted with the Act 250 application and testified regarding Criterion 8 for the Materials Processing Facility and lined landfill at Palisades landfill in Moretown, Vermont (#5W1064) and for the Welch Park Commercial Subdivision in Middlesex, Vermont (#5W1030-5). Most recently I testified on Criterion 8 on behalf of the neighbors opposed to expansion of the Bickford Quarry in Marshfield, Vermont (#5W1186). My testimony in the Bickford case included a discussion of important points related to the Quechee Lakes analysis to assist the Commission with its decision regarding undue adverse effects of the proposed project. 5.Q What is the purpose of your testimony in this Case? 5.A I am representing the Downing -Calkins Trust. The Trust owns 222 acres and shares a common boundary with MBL Associates along the northwest portion of their property as shown on Exhibit D-Ci. The Trust is concerned that the proposed density of the NIBL Associates project will have an undue adverse impact on the 1 developable portion of the Trust property that overlooks the MBL associates property. 6.Q Are you familiar with the applicants proposal? 6.A Yes, I have reviewed the proposed layout and location of the single and multi- family homes planned by MBL Associates. I have visited the applicants site and viewed the proposed project from the Trust property. 7.0 What is proposed by the Downing -Calkins Trust? 7.A For several months now, I have been working on a preliminary development plan to subdivide the Trust property. Our services have included meetings and discussions with regulators from the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont to address issues including development densities, zoning and planning requirements, restricted areas, access, water, wastewater, wildlife habitat, wetlands, recreational opportunities and prime agricultural soils. We have prepared a preliminary subdivision Master Plan which is shown on Exhibit D-C2. 8.Q Please describe the allowable versus the proposed development density planned for the Trust property. 8.A On August 24, 1994 I met with City of South Burlington Planner, Joe Weith. One of the issues we discussed was allowable development densities within the Southeast Quadrant which includes both the Trust and the MBL Associates properties. I was astounded to learn that the maximum allowable density for the total parcel was 1.1 units per acre and 4 units per acre within designated development areas. In the case of the Trust property, the total Parcel is 222 acres and the City has determined that less than half or 101 acres can be developed. The maximum allowable density is therefore 244 units with the only restriction being not more that 4 units per acre in each development area. 9.Q Why were you surprised or "astounded", by the allowable density on the Trust property? 9.A The zoning regulations for the City of South Burlington indicate that the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District is to encourage open space preservation, scenic views, natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, and the open character of the area. It was immediately obvious to me that the high allowable density was in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of formation of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. When I questioned Mr. Weith on the point he indicated that the Village at Dorset Park was used as a model for the 4 unit per acre allowable density. He went on to explain that the Dorset Park development was a Planned Unit: Development that involved clustering of homes to maximize open space and was well screened from major highways and neighboring properties., Upon further inquiry, I learned that Dorset Park involved a total of 108 acres. The project was approved for 177 units clustered on only 40 acres (4.4 units/acre) with the remaining 68 acres to be used for the Park. 10.Q How does the Trust property compare to the Dorset Park development? 10.A The Trust property is much larger in area (222 acres) than Dorset Park (108 acres). The Trust property is significantly similar in terms of visibility from major public views. Much of the interior portion of the property cannot be seen from public roads or neighboring properties. Therefore, development densities could easily be increased in the interior of the property without off -site visual impact. If the Calkins family decides to increase the number of lots in the interior portion of the property above what is currently shown on Exhibit D-C2, this higher density would seem to fit the Dorset Park model and the intent of the Southeast Quadrant District. Some increase in density may be required as we consider the economics of development costs for the infrastructure improvements. However, based on our preliminary estimates, we do not anticipate more than 100 lots for the entire project with no more than 1 unit per acre in the designated development areas that are visible from public roads including Allen Road, Spear Street and Dorset Street. 11.Q How does the MBL Associates property compare to the Dorset Park development? 1LA The MBL Associates property is entirely visible from Dorset Street and entirely visible from a portion of the Trust property. Therefore, the proposed MBL Associates project clearly does not fit the Dorset Park model. 12.Q With respect to Criterion 8, have you formed an opinion regarding the MBL Associates application? 12.A On the basis of my understanding of the Quechee analysis, the first step is to ask whether the project is in harmony with its surroundings. The MBL Associates project is clearly. not in harmony with its surroundings based on the highly visible, high density development that is planned in a scenic rural neighborhood that is characterized by large lots and open land. The entire 221 unit development will be visible from approximately 6 acres of prime development area of the Trust property. This 6 acres represents approximately 6% of the total developable acreage. Since the project is not in harmony with its surroundings its impact should be considered to be adverse. 3 The second step in the review process is to determine whether the adverse impacts of the project are undue. In my opinion, the impacts of the MBL Associates proposal are undue for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density will be highly visible from public views and therefore violates the clearly written community standard which is the stated purpose of establishment of the Southeast Quadrant District as found on Page 92 of the city of South Burlington Zoning Regulations. In addition, the proposed project does not fit the Village at Dorset Park model which was used to establish the allowable densities in the Southeast Quadrant District. 2. The projects impacts will be shocking and offensive to the average person. As related to the proposed Downing -Calkins Trust development, the average person who approaches the MBL Associates project from the west on the Trust property will undoubtedly be shocked and offended to be standing on a partially wooded, rural landscape and be viewing 60 multi -family units and 161 single family units - the closest of which are less than 200 feet from the Trust property line. 3. The applicant in this case has failed to take any generally available mitigating steps to improve the compatibility of the project with its surroundings. The obvious mitigating step would be to decrease the density of the project. 13.Q Do you have any concluding thoughts? 13.A Yes, my conclusion is that MBL Associates appear to have taken full advantage of the allowable density as per the Zoning Regulations without regard to the scenic impacts to the public, to the Southeast Quadrant or to neighboring properties including the property of the Downing -Calkins Trust. Therefore, unless significant mitigating measures are agreed to by the Applicant, I would urge the Board to deny this appeal under Criterion 8 on the basis of the undue adverse effect of the project on the scenic and natural beauty of the area and the future of the Southeast Quadrant. c\blcalktest.sob 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Bernard X. Chenette sent a copy of the foregoing Direct Prefiled Testimony, regarding MBL Associates, Application #4C0948-EB, .by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on November 21, 1994, to the following: MBL Associates by Stephen R. Crampton, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 City of South Burlington Selectboard and Planning Commission c/o City Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Town of Shelburne Selectboard and Planning Commission c/o Town Clerk P.O. Box 88 Shelburne, VT 05482 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission c/o Arthur R. Hogan, Jr., Exec. Dir. P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Agency of Natural Resources c/o Kurt Janson, Esq. Rep., State Agencies 103 S. Main, 3 Center Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 Jeff and Elizabeth Goldberg 1760 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Vincent Bolduc 1780 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John and Susan Jewett 1720 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Alex and Sandie Blair 1825 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 FOR INFORMATION ONLY District. #4 Environmental Comm. c/o Louis Borie, Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Department of Public Service c/o Stuart Slote, Energy Engineer Energy Efficiency Division 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Bernard X. 6enette, P.E. certserv.clk 206, Aft .�. Q)/i ; / , I� pF.e; K l•: r:...• RtTflt)�)R � � /jllG � � � � �/• -- I ® + n,GGi h. f♦� /� Ji ( O y �J L I \ I Iv orl .1 US _ ■eoMOMu �t� / ) 20Q.% a —...� WTL 7-- 0 - PULASANIIVA 100 LIJ 00 —•-C t,� I O 'T 1.16A, AU^ h o LI�.7 60'AOW Og �- CIDER 1' YiL x1000 �6�1'AluMi an II .. / ,. �•- - --- `•...\ too,-..((y�-•.;7�-ill )��� - 1.1 s --� o D �� %� FROM 200 T �b '6 /' — I 0, sTlt�(?. �. trot. t -- - -ff ---- --- - k L�------`F I7 a^R.SI•f))v Rnn O Too♦ 9n L♦ MBL AaSO�ATc• I LEGEND 1-7�— st:o OtsllTtcT tllxxtnARY I - OEVELOPtIENT AREAS RESTRICTED AREAS YILNO - HETLAND FP - FLOOOPLAIN WHAB - NOODLANDMILDLIFE HABITAT E 05 - OPEN SPACE PP - PLANNED PARK SOUTH EAST QUADRANT OFFICIAL ZONING MAP .A)NE. 1992 Prepared by: T.J. !byte and Assoclatea, Landscape AtcMleas and Planning Cansulants, Burin00n, Ve1n10111 ANU SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING BEPANIMENI w ..- •`- we �.ae t«u aw PIANO PREPARED RY: -� . 'I t� p C 1� GRAPHIC SCALE IINF) 1 took - goo tL 1 t._T__�) AlaWraMW FRDA T PARCI. _ MACRO - Dammam RlQLlRlM5NM_ MIME RYR1.11 WSRw JOTAW-nova On Lor RrJDARARr -D -wPT ARN. Lor RIIDNRIEF - Mrr AM IRlp1M1. 7l RION► wPr vex fOrr ROW wfr OF ROW WM ZYMM ON ALL DRROMBP Caucia= Rw" ARR-71-FAULP WMXW LOTAIwI-2 lOMLOM ARK Lai r+aADAis. Fr RRA L7T -f7RAE Rww ZrwwPT MW Orr AR RRKW RMo WIMIC [ ON ALL DO WN71D COIJRCION RM O COHRW RmaLSi®NDM A101" RwIDWw �-wR RRRiNO R OLOW ODWMN-.0% wlprnRRo RRRpRw CO►eA1R8•aRR AVARM LOr COVOMR!-4RR RRflRw Lar COY vAr--ct% PIIDl� Lor ooiwwr-iRt/R o~ Av AIEXM' PALL iL OWAXWf Ra SOK SE L7ADMWtLF. VT 0=1 AAOLOW .. 7W RERROM OT @OAfIAADS 70 SOM IIOO Ra AHWW BLKAWW yr 0w4wa ISO SF18AR 87RW ewm awmanx vr am 200 10th Avenue South, " N..h,Rl% Tonn....r 37203 T.I.phon. 015 720 1110 Fop 515 725 1112 p.l.IN MJW M A.VP�/pm JO. ./APPIJCANT: The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONOOLTANTO: P[AA86lNNQti/>EG7 LOOW ►im roes APA*T A w am ARMOR CW BYOMEER MOASSOMTEB vr TAD BYOI A33WW OSSlo= AH JAAaa0W AfflaAwLicT vr APPLIED ECOLOOM 88WIM AXWOMM w PROJECT IT=: SOUTH VILLAGE I'a,h Buell.ptou, Vcxmo nt e Recra vc yt Cnmpn n,� SPEAR STWET & ALLEN ROAD PROPOSED SITE PLAN NAIs t» pll® WN., "M Bum 2W ME smr. m. 01243 PLANS PREPARED BY: DEDICATED OFF-STREET PARKING DIAGRAM i) Ta Moderate Single Cottage Palisades Barn Unit Duplex ' Triplex Multi -Family Total dedicated off-street parking = 866 +/- spaces * Numbers on plan represent off-street parking spaces per lot. f 1� ), GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEW ) I Inch - 600 (t 206 10th Avenue South, PM N.OVI , TenNUN 37203 Telephone 515 725 1110 Foe 615 725 1112 W�IIN MJW DSM M APPUCANT: 77")" The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONSULTANTS: ALWWWWWWr LOONEY PJ= WS NPISM" TN cm CML ENOWEEM ASSOCL47M Vf MAW BVanER 7ND ENGINEERING OSSIPEF, NH LAND-WOFM SW OMI1BVlAL PCAMMNa APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES aRGADNEAo, W PROJECT TM: SOUTH VILLAGE ti �,uth Burlt u61ou, Vermo Ih< Nc�rnv,.nr Cum pane, SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD 60 X OFF-STREET PARKING DIAGRAM ➢ . UPAf > NOV., 2002 V2W P1 rmr. ep. 01243 PJANE PM WARXD BY, PARKING SUMMARY Private Street Parallel Parking 217 +1- spaces 1 Public Street Parallel Parking 127 +/- spaces Pocket Parking 113 +/- spaces ` Numbers on plan represent parking spaces. I Off -Street Parking Total = 866 spaces (Does not include civic, or farm parking) On -Street Parking Total = 457 spaces Total Parking = 1,323 +/- spaces GRAPHIC SCALE IN nN > 1 i-b . 20O f! 208 101h Awn.. 3-th. /toe N AW% TIM— 37203 Telph.n. 013 725 1110 F.. 615 728 1112 so= MJW DSM DSM APFUCINT: The Retrovvveest Companies FROMM COMMTANTBI nor LOONEY PAM xw ALAMM 7N aw< JiW'1R ER CNL ENWEERW0ASSOW7ES &%KB WA K nVim AN&VM 7W EMON1EWAVG oee MR yr AWNROWRTM PLAMW APPLIED ECOIAOIOAL SERWM nfl=h q, wr PROJECT TME: SOUTH VILLAGE Suuth 8. r�11 u.[o" Ver The 11 rr. ve. r C.. m.c, SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD ON -STREET PARKING SUMMARY NOV., MM P2 s .M DIM F F F / 1 � i 9 �j- South Village _ Proposed Public Streets TND Engineering Nov. 20, 2002 1T60-Pa- _It .....,..,(1 'z.,.."^.•.�" "`J.f r - , ..t •+ \\ •..., •ter �.-✓!'.'°i' ,.w/^"'^"'t--,l,i i If ,Typical [. ]74 r ` y ifST-60Pa , 1-- r ` Y Y Rb 1 Y t /F T F—� ST60b I' f 1 --�- t 6' ST60 --1 lust i L _ ' �_�, �_� South Village T T Street Assignments r-.wr.«r w•.r.rr rnr..w _r err `Y r. .. •.� i .. � ; 3.. � 1 . j `> > .� ..v �' -`-'`'-`�- •- TND Engineering Note: Unlabelled Streets are ST60Pb; Streets around Central Green to be detailed. NOV. 21, 2002 I I I p'P I I i I Q I I 1 I Q w I p I w 1 la p CP� 1 1 � 1 I 27' 20' 6' 5' 2' 2 LANES 61 R.O.W. , I A A I I 27' 20' 6' 5' 2' 2 LANES 61 R.O.W. ST-60 South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 02002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. & TND Engineering, All Rights Reserved. o I cam. 0 � P tin , 0 J � I fp I , I I too � I � o � � I pv � I 16, 26' 8' 5' 5' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. I I I 16' 26' 8' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. ST-60b I 0 I I , Ct p 77 I 0 � P � I 0 (� J�F � I I I � I a i �33 I o I I p � l Irp J�F P 16, 26, 8' 5' k5' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. d L�MO V(B <';�yr�t l/V ... �qy I I I 16, 26' 8' 5' S' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. NOTE: WHERE PUBLIC, STRUCTURAL BASE OF TRAVELLED WAY TO BE 28 FEET FROM FACE OF CURB ST-60Pa NOTE: THESE STREET SECTIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SOUTH VILLAGE, IN RECOGNITION OF ITS ENHANCED NON -MOTORIST DESIGN AND AS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT. THESE STREET SECTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE ELSEWHERE IN SOUTH BURLINGTON. 209 1 Oth Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fax 615 726 1112 Internet www.lrk.00m Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Planning Interiors Research TND Eolnaarinn Fnnlnaarinn rnnni SPEAR STREET 13 0 p lYQ Ctp 9� 0 0 p 5' 8' 14' 12' 14' 8' 5' 1 LANE 1 LANE 66'-0" R.O.W. 5' 8' 14' 12' 14' 8' 5' 1 LANE 1 LANE 66'-0" R.O.W. BV-66 South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 " November 13, 2002 02002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. & TND Engineering, All Rights Reserved. p 0 i PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 9 I i III I i I I 5' 5' 6' 20' 8' 6' 5' 5' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. 5' 5' 6' 20' 8' 6' 5' 5' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. ST-60 P NOTE: THESE STREET SECTIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SOUTH VILLAGE, IN RECOGNITION OF ITS ENHANCED NON -MOTORIST DESIGN AND AS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT. THESE STREET SECTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE ELSEWHERE IN SOUTH BURLINGTON. p I I p � 0 4' 5' 8' 26' 8' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. 4' 5' 8' 26' 8' 5' 4' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. ST-60Pb 209 10th Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fax 615 726 1112 Intemet www.lrk.00m Memphis Nashville Princeton Archftechre Planning Interiors Research TND Eglneering, Engineering Consultant t � I Qa I t I I C? � I I o � � I Q I { I I ¢ LU I ; Q I LV I p I Q0. � I I a I 37' 18' 6' 5' 2' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. I I _9T � I 37' 18' 6' 5' 2' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. NOTE: WETLANDS PERMITS SHALL ALLOW FOR A 20 FEET TRAVELLED WAY FROM FACE OF CURB ST-60c South Village Proposed Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington, Vermont 02.01027.03 • November 13, 2002 02002 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. & TND Engineering, All Rights Reserved. C� o ' 4 - i 14 x�6 o p 4 I iI t Z Q J LL o -0 9 � I 4 �9 � I 0 I 9 C 3' 5' 8' 24' 20' 2 LANES 60'-0" I I R.O.W. I 3' 5' 8' 24' 20' 2 LANES 60'-0" R.O.W. RD-60 NOTE: THESE STREET SECTIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SOUTH VILLAGE, IN RECOGNITION OF ITS ENHANCED NON -MOTORIST DESIGN AND AS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT. THESE STREET SECTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE ELSEWHERE IN SOUTH BURLINGTON. GARAGE I I I I 3' 20' 3' 2 WAY 26'-0" R.O.W. 3� 20' 3' 2 WAY 26'-0" R.O.W. AL-26 GARAGE r Q 'cb 209 10th Avenue South, Suite 408 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone 615 726 1110 Fax 615 726 1112 Internet www.lrk.00m Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Planning Interiors Research Tun rm.—o — F—k-M— rn ..Ifa.4 South Village Trip Generation Analysis TND Engineering # Description Dwellings Weekday AM pk Enter Exit PM •-ak Enter Exit North Single Family 20 236 23 6 17 25 16 9 LUC 210 % of Project Multi Family 16 137 12 2 10 16 10 6 LUC 230 11.6% Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUC 253 totals 36 373 35 8 27 41 26 15 Village Center Single Family 100 1,037 79 20 59 107 68 39 LUC 210 Multi Family 24 194 16 3 13 21 14 7 LUC 230 % of Project 50.3% Apartments 32 326 19 3 16 36 24 12 LUC 220 Farmstand, 2 employees* 20 10 5 5 Est totals 156 1,577 114 26 88 174 ill 63 South Single Family 57 618 49 12 37 65 42 23 LUC 210 % of Project Multi Family 13 115 10 2 8 13 8 5 LUC 230 22.6% C/ totals 70 733 59 14 45 78 50 28 Grove Apartmentsl 422 27 4 23 45 30 15 LUC 220 % of Project 15.5% Raw Trips Total, 310 3,105 235 52 183 338 217 121 Next Calculations- Person -Trips & Modal Splits sov D• - Tel--/non-trip Opening 97% 1% 0% 1% 1.5% Buildout 92% 3% 0% 2% 3% "SOV"= Single Occupant Vehicle; "DOV"= Double (or more) Occupant Vehicle, calculated as 2 Adult Trips Vehicle Trips With The Above Modal Weekday AM AM Weekday PM PM Buildout Weekday AM pk Enter Exit PM Peak Enter Exit 2857 216 48 168 311 200 ill Through Traffic as Calc by MPO 640 - - - 64 47 17 Totals 3497 216 48 168 375 247 128 * Farmstand will likely be predominantly pass -by trips 60% P M - O"INW-61, A wnft KIM" 0 � ". , �5% - --- T-'-l� r1 ; South Village External Trip Distribution 5% TND Engineering IL- 18�1T '� \��\ -� it 1� %�'� \\r Q is - 'K,� ff all !LU F -T L -T -7 --7 L I Ii 00 % I � \& ) It d- Z� ��1.South Village 7 T Turning % @ Allen (from MPO) TND Engineering Nov. 21, 2002 410 .7 r L1 , <4 00 Spot ADT Values S i.� ►AlongI r• i r ► Connectors (Includes MPO Through Trips) ' I 11 _. r- :2520 r $00' f 7 TZ11- 1 f 7 T-TT7 -LiT 71 Al :7 - .- South Village Traffic (ADT) Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 21, 2002 �Gy' ?\ � _- -J� '•-`.-.�.;:,'ter % C 1 Streets Under G 400 ADT Y �1 an ' 1 - South Village Traffic (ADT) Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 21, 2002 11V Streets Under 100 ADT zn) A Q Pwan ��- -� 1 South Village Traffic (ADT) Assignments TND Engineering Nov. 21, 2002 NO/ S7AVS 6, /y The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S SOUTH VILLAGE SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL Request for Waivers Revised November 21, 2002 As outlined in Section 25.15 of the Zoning Regulations, Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) are a planning instrument used to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and more efficient use of land". In an effort to achieve and exceed the planning goals set -forth for the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), we are seeking approval as a PRD and requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section 6.607. STREET DESIGN "It is a goal of this City to promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the open and special character of the Southeast Quadrant. The City will strive to encourage well planned residential development at densities and layouts that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas, and scenic views" Goal Statement, Chapter VIII 2001 Comprehensive Plan "Greater incentives to promote walking and bicycling can and should be implemented to minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation. In addition, pedestrians in an automobile -oriented environment must receive appropriate consideration. " 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII Streets form the fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists. The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision" design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria that are appropriate for 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The South village plan includes a variety of street types that have been designed and laid out to encourage a balance among all of the users of the street: motorist and non - motorists alike. Designed in accordance with the ITE Traditional Neighborhood Guidelines, each South Village street type is designed for specific use and conditions based upon projected vehicular and pedestrian use, desired parking conditions, environmental conditions, public emergency access, and streetscape character. These standards are designed to calm traffic and foster a safe pedestrian environment, while maximizing interconnectivity. In an effort to achieve the goal of minimizing environmental impacts while creating a walkable and pedestrian -friendly community, we are requesting the following waivers: 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A. Minimum right-of-way width for Public Collector from 80' to 60'. B. Minimum right-of-way width for Private Local street from 60' to: 26' (for Lanes and Alleys) C. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector from 32' to: 28' (2 lanes, parking on one side with bulbouts) 20' (2 lanes, no parking, and at wetland crossing) D. Minimum pavement width for Public Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' .(Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 18' (Wetland Crossing - 2 lanes, no parking) E. Minimum pavement width for Private Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 20' (Private Rear Lane Access) , F. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local street from 300' to 200'. G. Minimum radius of curves for Private Local street from 300' to 120'. H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector from 150' to 50'. South Village - Request for Waivers 2 SENT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIE83- 802 003 13395 NOV-20-02 4:1OPM; PAGE 2/3 auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The South village Flan Includes a variety of street types that have been designed and laid out to encourage a balance among all of the users of the street: motorist and non- n1otorists alike. Designed in acoordance with the ITE Traditional Neighborhood Guidelines, each South Village street type is designed for specific use and conditions based upon projected vehicular and pedestrian use, desired parking conditions; enviroatnental conditions, public emergency access, and strectscape character. These' standards arc designed to calm traffic and foster a safe pedestrian environment, while maximizing interconnectivity. In an effort to achieve the goal of minimizing environmental impacts while creating a walkable and pedestrian -friendly community, we are requesting the following waivers: 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A. Minimum right-of-way width for Public Collector from 80' to 601 . B, Minimum right-of-way width for Private Local street from 60' to: 26' (for Lanes and Alleys) C. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector from 32' to: 28' (2 lanes, parking on one side with bulbouts) 20' (2 lanes, no parking, and at we0and crossing) n. Minimum pavement width for Public Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 20' (wetland Crossing - 2 lanes, no parking) E. Minimum pavement width for Private Local street from 30' to: 26' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 24' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, no parking, curbed on one side) 20' (Private Rear Lane Access) 1S' (Wetland Crossing - 2 lanes, no parking) F, Mittitrtutn radius of curves for Public Local street from 300' to 200'. G. Minimum radius of curves for Private Local street from 300' to 1201 . H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector from 1 S0' to South Village - Rcqum for 'waivers I. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 0'. J. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150'. K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Public Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum vertical (stopping)- sight distance from 200' to 150' for Public Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 125' for Private Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph). N. Minimum horizontal (corner) sighf distance for Public Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). O. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for a Public Street from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). P. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for a Private Street from 300 to 225' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph). 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, $hall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 0' setback on all roadways within South Village. South Village - Request for Waivers 3 Mix of Housing; Types The type of residential development that has occurred in the Quadrant in the past 20 years has been primarily upper income housing. The City strongly encourages a variety of housing types in the Quadrant, not only in terms of development densities and design, but in terms of affordability. A variety of development patterns and layouts as well as both single and multifamily units should be promoted. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Chapter VIII, Southeast Quadrant The South Village master plan is comprised of a series of linked neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will include a mix of housing types. A diversity of housing types enables citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within the community. Lot dimensions throughout South Village are appropriately scaled to individual housing types. The mix of village -scaled housing and lot types will include cottages, single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. In an effort to achieve the goal of providing a mix of housing types, we are requesting the following waivers: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements - The following waivers are requested for single, two family and multi family buildings to allow for a greater mix of housing on lots that have dimensional characteristics that correspond to individual village -scaled housing types. A) Minimum Lot Size B) Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets C) Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets D) Max. Building Coverage E) Max. Lot Coverage F) Front Yard Setback G) Rear Yard Setback H.) Side Yard Setback I)_ Minimum Lot Size South Village - Request for Waivers 4 In addition to the previously described waivers, we are seeking_ positive determination from the Development Review Board for the following requests: Affordable Housing The City should explore creative zoning techniques and work with developers to encourage affordable housing in the Quadrant. The City should explore such zoning methods as density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing. It is important that affordable housing projects be done in a manner and design which promotes the preservation of open space, natural resources, and scenic views. 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VIII As part of the South Village municipal permitting process we are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for an Affordable Housing Density Bonus. Each dwelling unit received as a bonus (above the allowable density of approximately 264) will be allocated as an affordable unit. Affordable units shall be defined as per the Regional Plan. Article III Conservation and Open Space District Section 3.106 (Wetland and Buffers) r. Using a combination of compact neighborhood design and ecological planning practices, there is an opportunity to protect and restore the portions of the South Village site that contain the greatest ecological`value. The proposed .plan includes several encroachments into the C.O. District. Class III Wetland and associated buffers will be eliminated and/or impacted in order to achieve the following design goals: Clustered Development: To facilitate the clustering of homes away, from identified wildlife habitat, Class II wetlands, and areas containing greater ecological value we are seeking waivers to eliminate and/or impact isolated Class III wetlands and associated buffers within the project's Village Center. Ecologically Designed Storm Water Management: Throughout the proposed South Village plan are encroachments into the C.O. District (Class III Wetlands and associated buffers) that support the development of a comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). We believe that this is consistent South Village - Request for Waivers 5 SENT Sv: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 863 1339; NOV-26-0^ 4:10PM; PA3E 3/3 With the uses allowed within the C.O. District. Because of the importance of this stormwatcr management component to the overal: design goals of the coma lir-ity as well as the permitting requirement for the project, there will be limited potential for traditional residential activities to adversely affect these areas. These areas will be actively managed and protected by easements precluding die need to further protect them through tite modification of property lines. SOUfh village - RoqucSt far wM1YCP5 6 South Burlington Street Department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD November 20, 2002 To: Juli-Beth Hoover, Planning and Zoning Director From: Bruce K. Hoar, Director of Public Works CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator Re: South Village I have reviewed the latest information for street design for South Village. The city really needs to consider the need for and East-West connection in this location. Only a few of the roads in this development are being considered for public roads. The right of way for all roads, public or private needs to be 60 feet. The only exception to the R.O.W. could be for the roads that they have labeled AL-26 and are intended to serve only as access to garages. Our standard at this time is for right of way widths of 80' to 60'. The right of way is something that is needed up front so that the city has the flexibility to maintain and make future changes as needed for the benefit of all the residents. Below are comments on the road sections as provided at this time. BV-66 Road BV-66 is the main entrance to this development. Under our current regulations the ROW for this section would be 80'. Reducing the ROW to 66' in this location is acceptable and the lane configuration as shown could easily be modified to except another lane if needed. RD-60 The real question here is the road width. Our standards are much different for road width. The width as designed would be acceptable if the agreements are in place for this area to be used for farming as is the developers intent. The ROW gives the city the room to make any future changes. ST-60b The question with this road is again the pavement width. The width being asked for is both below our present regulations and those of the AASHTO guidelines for very low - volume local roads. If the city is in support of this development the ROW allows the room for improvements if needed. ST-60P No problem with this street section. Allows for two ten -foot lanes (although two - eleven foot lanes would be better) and on street parking. This type of section is very pedestrian friendly. ST-60Pa Section is to narrow for on street parking. Section needs to be changed to 28' to allow for parking on one side. It is important to note that sections of this road have fairly high ADTs that put it well above what would be considered a very low -volume local road. Once again the ROW is being maintained if improvements need to be made at a later time by the city. ST-50P Same comments for this section of road as ST-60Pa. There are two exceptions. One is that the ADTs may be lower. The other is that the ROW needs to be 60' not 50'. ST-50 With one change to what the city is taking as public streets none of these sections would be under the city and would remain private. Once again the ROW should be 60'. One way that might work for the city is for the developer to hold all the roads until most of the development is built out. Even then the city may have to ask for retainage for a longer period of time to see how the network works once it is built. IDEVELOPMEP-IT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 3, 2002 MEETING Access/circulation: Access is via two (2) 36 foot wide curb cuts off Shelburne Road. No change is proposed. Circulation on site is adequate. Coverage/setback: The proposed building coverage is 5.57`/0; up from 1.71 % (maximum allowed is 30%). The proposed overall coverage is 45.96%; up from 39.6% (maximum allowed is 70%). The proposal includes a reduction in front yard coverage to 55.2%, down from 58.9% (maximum allowed is 30%). The proposed building meets the required minimum setbacks. The plan indicates the rear setback requirement is 15 feet. This is not correct, the rear setback in the Cl District is 30 feet. Dumpsters: The plan shows an enclosed dumpster storage area. Parking: The minimum parking requirement is 20 spaces. The plan shows 20 spaces including one accessible space. The plan shows a bike rack. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement based on building cost is $9150. The proposal meets the requirement. The plantings include lilac, arborvitae, little leaf linden and junipers. The city arborist reviewed the proposal and stated that little leaf lindens and some maples are overplanted in South Burlington. He suggested some alternate species. These include turkish filbert, english oak, silver linden and others (see comments). Lighting: The applicant should provide details (cut sheets) for all existing and proposed exterior light fixtures and show their location on the plan. All proposed light fixtures must be downcasting and shielded and must be approved by the Director prior to installation. Other: It has been the Board's policy to prohibit outside storage and display at convenience stores. Staff recommends a condition prohibiting any outside storage or display. Traffic Review: The number of fueling positions is used to estimate the number of vehicle trip end's. The application before the Board does not include an increase in the number of pumps or fueling positions. Therefore, no additional traffic expected. 7) RETROVEST, 310 UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SPEAR STREET This project consists of a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi -family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm. This project was continued DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 3, 2002 MEETING from the September 3, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant time to address some concerns of the Street Department. Minutes from the 8/6/02 meeting are enclosed for your review. Staff requests the Board review the enclosed list of waivers prior to the meeting. The property located at 1840 Spear Street lies within the SEQ Zoning District, Spear Street - Allen Road View Protection Overlay District, and the C. O. District. The property is bounded on the north and east by single family residences, on the west by Spear Street, and on the south by the Town of Shelburne and a single family residence. Access: Proposed access is via four (4) access points onto the parcel, three (3) off Spear Street and a connection through to Midland Avenue. The applicant also proposes to reserve a r.o.w. to the property to the north for a future road connection if necessary. The l 1x17 plans distributed to the Board discuss the streets to remain private and the proposed public streets (page 4). Street assignments found on page 5 correlate to the street sections on pages 6-8. The applicant should propose a legal method/ document to keep private roads from becoming public streets in perpetuity. Density: The parcel is 242 acres of undeveloped land in South Burlington with one existing structure. A portion of the parcel is within the Town of Shelburne, where no development is proposed. The project is for 310 dwelling units. The density allowed on the property is 290 dwelling units, (242 acres x 1.2 units =290 units). The applicant requests a density bonus. The South Burlington Zoning Regulation's contain no provisions for granting density bonuses for construction of affordable housing units. The designated developable area as shown on the SEQ Zoning Map is 90.5 acres. This is enough acreage to support the allowable density (4 units x 90.5 developable acres = 362 units). Street Standards Waivers: The applicant requests waivers from the South Burlington Street Design Standards in the Section 401.1 of the subdivision regulations. These waivers concern minimum pavement widths, r.o.w. widths, minimum radius curves, tangent lengths between curves, distance between centerline offsets, minimum vertical sight distances, and minimum horizontal sight distances. The applicant provided previously (please refer to materials from the 8/6/02 meeting) a study/report addressing "Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines," a recommended practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers to assist in the justification of their waiver requests from the street design standards. It is staffs understanding the plans reflect the changes requested by the Director of Public Works, Bruce Hoar. Mr. Hoar's comments are enclosed (letter dated November 20, 2002). m DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 3, 2002 MEETING The City Engineer commented on the requested waivers (see comments dated 12/3/02). The applicant should be prepared to justify all waivers to the Board. Lot Size/Frontage Waivers: Under Section 6.607 of the zoning regulations, the Board has the ability to modify area and dimensional requirements found in Article XXV of the zoning regulations. The applicant requests waivers from the minimum lot size, frontage on local streets, and frontage on collector street requirements for single family, duplexes, and multi- family dwellings. The applicant should be aware the Board does not have the ability to waive Section 26.202 (b) of the zoning regulations, the number of lots serviced by a private street shall be no more than three. The applicant proposes a number of private streets in combination with public streets, to serve more than three lots. View Protection Zone: The property is located in the Spear Street -Allen Road View Protection Overlay District. On a previously submitted plan, the applicant indicated the height limitations for this district. The preliminary plat submittal should include the maximum height elevations measured above mean sea level for all structures proposed within the district. Lot Coverage/Setbacks Waivers: The applicant requests a waiver from SEQ setback requirements. The request is to waive the 50 foot front yard setback in favor of a 0 foot setback on all roadways (arterial and collector). Staff has no problem with this request. The proposed building coverage for the PRD is 5.5% (maximum allowed is 20%). Proposed overall coverage is 13.9% (maximum allowed is 40%). The applicant should propose a specific maximum building and overall coverage for individual lots. Parking: The minimum parking requirement for the residential component (including guest spaces) is 698 spaces (310 units x 2.25 parking spaces/ unit = 698 spaces). The number of off street parking spaces shown on the plan is 866 +/-. The number of on street spaces provided is 457 +/-, for a total of 1,323 +/- parking spaces. These calculations do not include parking for the accessory residential uses (community center or farm). Staff does not have a problem with the number of parking spaces provided. The applicant proposes to prohibit recreational vehicles. This prohibition should be reflected in the homeowners documents. Bicycle storage areas should be noted on the plans with the preliminary plat submittal. Specific parking for the accessory residential uses will be discussed at preliminary plat. Traffic: The 1 I 177 plans show a trip generation analysis (page 9), turning movement allocation plan (page 11), and ADT assignments (page 12-14) supporting the requested 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 3, 2002 MEETING waivers is enclosed for your review. A traffic impact study should be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Enclosed for your review is a memo from the CCMPO concerning potential traffic volumes if a connection is built between Midland Avenue and Spear Street. This analysis does not include any additional traffic created by the South Village development. C.O. District/ wetland buffer: The plans show the locations of all delineated wetlands on the site. The preliminary plat plans must show the 50 foot C.O. District/ wetland buffer around all C. O. Districts. A wetland assessment by Wm. Countryman Consultants is enclosed. The preliminary plat submittal should include a report addressing the criteria found in Section 3.503 of the zoning regulations. Portions of lots are located within the CO District/wetland buffer. Staff recommends an adjustment of lot lines to coincide with the C.O. District/wetland buffer (encroachment shown on the east side of" G" Street to the south). The applicant stated some of the encroachment is due to the development of a Comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). The applicant should be prepared to discuss this concept with the Board. Restricted Areas: For the preliminary plat submittal, the plans should be updated to show the restricted areas and the developable areas with the new layout. The applicant should be prepared to justify development within the restricted areas under section 6.606 (a)-(d) of the zoning regulations. Agricultural Activities: The applicant proposes a working 35 acre farm in the northwestern portion of the site. The buildings located within the restricted area along Spear Street are for agricultural use, which is an allowed in use under Section 6.501 of the zoning regulations. The preliminary plat submittal should provide a detailed explanation of the farm and the activities proposed for this portion of the project. South Burlington Natural Resources Committee: The applicant should schedule a meeting with the Natural Resources Committee concerning wetland encroachment prior to a preliminary plat hearing and upon completion of the above mentioned report addressing C.O. District /wetland encroachment. South Burlington Water Department: Please Review the memo dated July 16, 2002 from the SBWD (enclosed). South Burlington Fire Department: The applicant is working with the SBFD. Comments from the Fire Chief will be distributed at the meeting. South Burlington Recreation Path Committee: Please review comments provided by the SBRPC (enclosed). P-1 DEVELOPMENT ENT REVIEW BARD MEMO December 39 2002 MEETING South Burlington School District: The applicant should submit correspondence from the South Burlington School District evaluating the potential impact this project will have on the school system with a preliminary plat application. 0 0ik `CCMPO Chittenden County®,•����m Metropolitan Planning Organization 100 Dorset Street To: Juli Beth Hoover, Rick Chellman Suite 22 From: David Roberts South Burlington, VT 05403-6241 Date: October 21, 2002 t 802.660.4071 Subject: Midland Ave connection modeling f 802, 660, 4079 WWL'v.ccmpo.org intowccn)pc.org In response to our meeting on October 11, 2002, t have used the CCMPO transportation model to examine the potential volumes of a connection through the South Village Development between Spear St and Midland Ave. The analysis performed does not account for any additional traffic due to the South Village development. Future traffic volumes include existing or expected development by 2005 in Chittenden County. The model network was based on the "Committed Network" used in the analysis for our long-range transportation plan which includes several high -priority projects, such as the Southern Connector and Shelburne Rd reconstruction. For the purpose of this study, no new segments of the Circumferential Highway or additional I-89 ramps were included. Figure 1 is a map of PM Peak Hour traffic volumes in 2005 with the committed network. The figures may be difficult to understand — they are straight from our transportation modeling software which is not very user friendly. You can use I-89 and US 7 as references to orient layout of the street network in the model. The South Village connector was examined in two separate scenarios: 1. Midland Ave connecting as a 15 mph, 0.9 mile link [see Figure 2 for volumes] 2. Midland Ave connecting as a 20 mph, 0.9 mile link [see Figure 3 for volumes] Table 1 below summarizes the traffic volume projections for the proposed roadway through the South Village Development. The difference in speeds does lead to a significant difference in projected traffic volumes on the facility. Rick may want to examine the site layout using scale drawings of the sketch plan and the proposed traffic controls at the development's intersections to develop a more accurate estimate of the travel speeds and distance of the proposed connection to Midland Ave. The model can be rerun with a different speed and distance combination if . necessary. Comrr unities working together to meet Chittenden County's transportation needs Table 1: 2005 PM Peak Hour Transportation Model Vnhimpc Midland Ave Midland Ave Allen Rd to Dorset Farms Dorset Farms to Dorset Street South Village) Dorset Farms Eastbound Westbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total 2005 Committed - - - 71 193 264 Network 2005 South Village 47 17 64 54 147 201 15mph ---] 2005 South Village 82 22 104 T--20m 53 115 168 h The attached MS Excel Spreadsheet includes a comparison of the turning movement count data between the scenarios and with the counts performed this summer. There are three separate worksheets for the various comparisons. The turning movement count data on local streets is not as reliable as using the model for regional projections. When an analysis requiring accurate turning movements is performed, we generally use existing ground counts as the base and then use the model to project the increase in traffic. This is a more suitable use of turning movement count data from the model. To estimate the average daily traffic on a road we generally multiply the PM peak hour projection by 10. This results in an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) through the South Village development of 640 to 1040 vehicles per day which does not include any of the South Village site generated traffic. The Vermont State Design Standards recommend a minimum of 9 foot lanes with 2 foot shoulders on rural local roads with Average Daily Traffic between 400 and 1500 vehicles per day. While the South Village development is not "rural", I believe the standards provide a useful minimum guideline. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this information. x eCMPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes 'Comparison of Committed Network vs 15 mph Midland Connection /18/2002 s Committed Network Volumes Committed Network + Midland Ave Connection [South Villaqe - 0.9 mile 15 mph connection] se I Spear St & Swift St Model N I E S W 33 21 174 257 341 55 147 195 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 se Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave odel N E is W 82 0 0 254 T 499 0 258 0 0 0 115 105 1314 581 0 374 359 Bose Spear St &Barstow Rd del N E S W 0 69 146 0 569 0 291 0 kC 154 216 0 0 4445 723 285 437 0 Base Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0 5 56 0 T 659 0 423 0 L 25 43 0 0 1211 684 49 479 0 Build I Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R 33 21 175 258 T 342 54 147 187 L 75 188 128 49 1,658 450 263 450 494 Build Spear St &Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R 82 3 0 229 T 501 14 259 37 L 10 0 104 104 1,343 592 17 363 370 Build Spear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 0 58 143 0 T 570 0 291 0 L 130 216 0 0 1408 700 275 433 0 Build Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N I E is W R 0 5 45 0 T 660 0 423 0 L 25 40 0 0 1,199 686 45 468 0 15mph Comparison Percent Difference - Committed Network vs Midland Connector Compare Compare Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0.0% -19.0% T 0.3% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% -7.5%L -7.5% rL -1.0% 0.3% -6.7% -2.1% Sear St &Swift St Model N E S W R 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.5% T 0.1% -2.1% 0.0% -4.0% L 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% Compare Spear St &Allen Rd -Midland Ave Model N E S W R 0.0% -9.8% T 0.3% 0.2% L -10.0% -1.1% Compare Sear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -15.7% -2.1 T 0.2% -0.1% L -15.7% 0.3% -2.5% -3.2% -3.6% -0.7% 4w&� kl CO 9* 10 CS 31 GMPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes Vomparison of Committed Network vs 20 mph Midland Connection N 1812002 I mmitted Network Volumes Committed Network + Midland Ave Connection { South Village - 0.9 mile 20 mph connection se Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W 33 21 174 257 341 55 147 195 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 x S ear St &Allen Rd - Midland Ave N E S W 82 0 0 254 E1314 499 0 258 0 0 0 115 105 581 0 374 359 se Spear St &Barstow Rd del N E S W 0 69 146 0 569 0 291 0 154 216 0 0 1445 723 285 437 0 �abse I Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N JE S W 0 5 56 0 659 01 423 0 25 43 1 0 0 1211 684 49 1 479 0 Build Spear St & Swift St Model N JE S W R 33 20 199 269 T 351 54 149 176 L 66 187 129 49 1,682 450 261 476 494 Build Spear St &Alien Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R 81 6 0 228 T 499 15 259 40 L 42 0 103 104 1,377 621 22 362 372 Build Spear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 0 58 143 0 T 568 0 291 0 L 128 219 0 0 1406 696 277 433 0 Build Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0 5 21 0 T 689 0 450 0 L 16 40 0 0 1,221 705 45 471 0 20mph Comparison Percent Difference - Committed Network vs Midland Connector Compare Compare Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R -7.3% _ -61.6% T 4.6% 6.4% L -36.5% -7.5% 0.9°/ 3.1% -7.5% -1.5% Sear St &Swift St Model N E S W R 0.0% -4.4% 13.9% 4.8% T 2.7% -3.5% 1.2% -9.7% L -11.9% -0.2% 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% 0.1% -1.2% 6.0% -1.3% Com are Sear St &Allen Rd -Midland Ave Model N E S W R -1.1% -10.4% T -0.1% 0.2% L -10.7% -1.1% 4.7% 6.9% 3.5% Compare Sear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -16.8% -2.2% T -0.1% -0.1% L -17.0% 1.5% -2.7% -3.7% -3.0% -0.8% M. CCMPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes Comparison of Predicted Model Volumes with Current Volumes 10/18/2002 2002 PM Peak Hour Counts (not adjusted) 2005 Committed Network Model Volumes PM count Spear St & Swift St North East South West Right 62 38 114 206 Thru 179 150 204 154 Left 86 155 141 52 1541 327 343 459 1 412 PM count Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave North East South West Right 188 141 Thru 458 325 Left 103 171 1386 646 0 428 312 PM count Spear St & Barstow Rd North East South West R 102 80 T 446 315 L 135 124 1202 581 226 395 0 2002 PM Spear St & Ncwland Farm Rd North East South West Right 49 19 20 1 Thru 749 2 437 1 Left 29 15 1 22 1345 827 36 458 24 Base Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R 33 21 174 257 T 341 55 147 195 L 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 Base Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R 82 0 0 254 T 499 0 258 0 L 0 0 115 105 1314 581 0 374 359 Base Spear St & Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 0 69 146 0 T 569 0 291 0 L 154 216 0 0 1445 723 285 437 0 Base Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0 5 56 0 T 659 0 423 0 L 25 43 0 0 1211 684 49 479 0 Model vs. Count Comparison Percent Difference - Count vs Model Compare Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R -46.1% -45.10/. 53.0% 24.6% T 90.7% -63.0% -27.9% 26.8% L -12.4% 21.1% -9.1% -6.4% 8.0% 37.6% -23.0% -2.0% 21.5% Compare Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S 1W R -56.4% 80.3% T 9.0% -20.5% L 12.1 % -38.7% -5.2% -10.0% -12.6% 15.1% Compare Spear St & Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -32.0% 82.4% T 27.5% -7.7% L 14.4% 73.9% 20.2% 24.5% 26.1 % 10.5% Compare Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R -100.0% -72.4% 179.5% -100.0% T -12A% -100.0% -3.3% -100.0% L -13.3% 188.9% -100.0% -100.0% 10.0% -17.30/. 34.9% 4.5% -100.0% m Figure 1 — 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes — Committed Network - -q oD aO�)ao. VXA iiX@pDo'AxgX4XO*XPD-1 .Axzo.AXg x-jgx<-2(.j *-4)n*x6x■A l *X�) ��®�u�x6P7d►�Ap�A,nd�.A ■ . uH■a#.KApDA,dnff Y=A<I� X&6xT ux�� =P�=�J +�� 0 bex� - X.o� /b ry m v �N �W ONO 00 NNm 90 mm A, OZ m m A yO A 1 CO p A 5 32 �7l 477 0 O ry 2 0 NN o a E E �ln ~ . w i a O Np C W m B0 29 O f p 171 V m 59 Om pp 4Jrnr��Q Z 177 3fe ]< 6,E. Viz > � 419 Z 7 A90 Q ^m rIJ3 m � 31 ♦ - ` w 39 � ~ of 7 EC u v m — COOO mN O [ S2 L (V 6 i m2 }j bA[ 0 p b e ^ m OOP I B2b v 9B A9b l /O� 4 mm � IN oz h N b5 E 6g N i N � P m f m o N fc'Si b [ � Atq � 0 0 m C pB� Q Figure 2 — 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Midland Ave —15 mph XAH�)-4)� �-� 4;5pX -4• LX)A1, d4o ■.�u�� -45,XTHnS•®11gu LH$',�DL-eu N C:Wm OQo +- " pro ; z> CQ �--� C w Leg mLn" 0 0 = N O [n Figure 3 — 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Midland Ave — 20 mph IuE8;D,,A,I,x—oPDu it 20 -jHuaxj®xc,H-ATx xo8@.�bL, (■d=• ( 8■P)6 o.4A®xb-j8i2 =d�) (08=• ( . -Zf,#OL R CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 100 Dorset Street Suite 22 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 660.4071 FAX (802) 660-4079 JOB SHEET NO. _ CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY — SCALE OF _ DATE DATE N 37� S--r 5T 62 ti A 1 1 t-'g t.,Sel 34i z4H zYl R2T �36 jr 1«{ 5.3a �B S nk ST r I55 5—r'^ 506R 99 re ie4 ,�4 3Dr+^ 55, 1}2 y} tY 1P 621 4o tSb ��3 r�-. 45 ja iSTwCNwiw%j 39 —`� � 3p5 Saw-%%2 ti• t5 v« 3D S�s2-tt3 1 � 4551 43t. W5� 35S 4 i --m J � v ,rts J �ELat,e1.0 y'Sot'^ N.-+✓w► Fgcw a 504R-1e5 12'�' 442 Z 193 r? 41 i4 iiNtA� J J SW 1,4 54" h T 4�SDT" 3 i q1S 444 a3 3t8 AU -%CA 91 226 f,.ttp�.r,ry A, At�fN� � L .-.—�... cj 30ir tot 312 ,4t -y toff ;15 lq k5 - t3`I '�ID1 Nt Ib, 4t -I �ME&EFMt 9�h�,5tD� R➢ yH 35 1 �7t7a ,c.,1M J, y 1-4119g; t�1 SHCliOtO - 5NEL- DO N'u5 7 n NS T'^ ? r' )iAc6rpw ,2' 3t6 tSD 2Dfn i tz�� 311. iye 4%��°��t98®Y��e����e goH�,x�®OOXo���Oa� J A®Xp �0au�� x : x#uHA, u )DPD�oOXg� ) F��pp�q�re t— ,'VFO T r i-7��e M�v1e ent C�{lntts (NOT DJUST%D *xo � duo G o � O � u 0=9 (5 ■ V✓mac ♦�► G ♦) �OJ ♦`y■e�� 4 �7I u 1 11� "X.40x♦ (5 ) 6>] ► ♦ x XA 0 05 uP)u) ►X♦XuOAH♦ -lax pH(5 uH iIY Y �� �■®X 08 Io®�8�®�08$x =0.40x.) ♦x=�, b��oyo =) ♦ X■p&OX OX= ^A)� T O.CX-1 ®XOPX*T „T♦-1 <-� ►T (J -4OA . ►) l.I17) 6-1 y i) 9;5Td ib TA=♦ � I TEA►pAT=O i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 August 2002, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; M. Boucher, R. Farley, G. Quimby, L. Kupferman Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Marshall, B. Wessel, V. Fraser, G. Sporzynski, L. Budd, B. Hoar, R. Chelman, R. Collins, K. Braverman, M. Cloutier, S. Walker, S. Dopp, L. Cummings, J. Anderson, D. Scheuer, S. Parker, L.Parker, R. Adams 1. Other Business: a. Request of William Wessel for a subdivision approval extension: Mr. Belair advised that the City Attorney-s opinion is that the approval lapsed because the applicant didn't't-t get an extension before the time ran out. The Board must hold a public hearing before granting an extension. A second option would be to have the applicant reapply. There have been no changes, and they would get a 3-year approval. Mr. Anderson, representing Mr. Wessel, said they would like to schedule both hearings, and the DRB can do whatever it wants. The Board was OK with this. Mr. Belair will warn these items for the 3 September meeting. 2. Minutes of 7 May, 14 May, 21 May and 16 July: Minutes could not be acted upon as there was not a quorum of those present at these meetings. 3. Sketch plan application #SD-02-44 of Retrovest Associates, Inc., for a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi -family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm: Mr. Dinklage acknowledged receipt of a memorandum and staff notes plus a note from the Water Dept. regarding capacity and looping. There are also comments from the Fire Department and City Engineer and a note from Bruce O=Neill regarding the rec path. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Scheuer began the presentation on South Village which will be located on the Calkins property. The goals of the project are to create an environmental stewardship and a sense of place, and to provide an opportunity for agriculture. Mr. Scheuer indicated they have done a lot of environmental Reconnaissance@ on the property. They have a stormwater management program, an open space plan, agricultural plan, and other presentations. One of the principal objectives of the project is to create a sense of community. This will involve a mix of housing types (town houses, multi -family, single family variations, etc) and will also include affordable housing options. There is an active agriculture component in partnership with the Intervale Foundation. This will include community gardening, restoration of native plants, agriculture, etc. Mr. Scheuer then showed a plan of the site. He noted that a small triangle of the property is in Shelburne. This piece will not be developed as part of this plan. Features of the property include: scenic view overlay and a 300ft. setback from Spear Street. Mr. Scheuer then showed a plan of the ecological conditions of the property. He said the site plan is ecologically derived except for the view corridor. There is an existing house on the property. Two entrances are proposed to the project, one at the north end and one opposite Allen Road. Midland Avenue would also connect to this site. Mr. Scheuer said it is very important that streets and lanes be scaled to accommodate the nature of the project and the diversity of housing types. There will be a lot of open space. The project will be comprised of 4 Neighborhoods@: the Village Center will be the first to be built. It will include a Community Meeting House, farm stand, educational facility, skating pond, etc. The other areas are The Ridge Neighborhood, The Field Neighborhood, and The Grove (multi -family homes). Streets will be very interconnected. Mr. Scheuer said that at present the site is overrun with non-native plants. These would be eradicated and replaced with native species. T here is a cutting edge@ stormwater management plan. This will allow water to be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 3 treated on the surface so there is less water going off -site and it is moving at a slower rate. This also creates some topography for the neighborhood Mr. Scheuer showed a drawing of the concept of a stormwater treatment train such as would be used here. The plan includes a working farm and possibly an orchard. There will also be walking trails, a wildlife habitat area, and neighborhood green space. The 35-acre farm would be managed by the Intervale Foundation. Some of the housing would serve the people who would be farming the land. The Foundation would also manage the native plant production. Mr. Scheuer showed the location bike path, walking trails, quiet pathsO (no vehicles allowed). All streets would have sidewalks. Mr. Scheuer then showed a street plan. He said each street would include different types of housing. He stressed the importance of streets having a Pedestrian scale.0 He compared what they are asking for to what is allowed in the regulations. Mr. Chelman addressed the issue of traffic. He noted that their organization began working on projects such as this in 1986. One of the major components of the projects is pedestrian scale streets. He said that before World War 2, streets were Awalkable. La Following the War, research for the Interstates was underway, and it was decided that streets should be designed for Aa nuclear eventO and the clean-up afterward. The Chair of ITE held this attitude. He also felt that bikes don=t belong in residential neighborhoods and that pedestrians were also a problem. But even he agreed that with more people walking, you need new criteria for streets. The target goal for residential street speed is 20 mph. Mr. Chelman said that as vehicle speed comes down, streets become safer. The current standard does riot promote walkability. Mr. Dinklage noted that he lives in Mayfair Park which has 20 ft. streets and no curbs or sidewalks. They have mounting parking problems which he feels stem from a change in the use of housing, specifically young professionals sharing a house and retired adults. He said in his neighborhood, there is often parking on lawns when there is an event -taking place in one of the houses. He asked where people will park in this planned development. Mr. Chelman said there will be street parking and parking in the rear lanes. Mr. Dinklage said if you have 3 cars per unit, you=re in trouble. Mr. Scheuer said a given house might have a problem at a given time, but they were anticipating one -person. households, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 4 generally without children, and with only one car. Ms. Cummings said she lives across from where the farm would be. She supports this project more than other recent developments in South Burlington. She felt guest parking would be a problem. She felt there should be some guest parking areas tucked in. Ms. Walker also lives across the street and also likes the concept. She questioned the density because of traffic along Spear St. She said it is already hard to get in and out of their driveway at some times during the day. Mr. Braverman said the typical situation in the project provides on -street parking. There will be a garage and driveway for most of the plan as well. Mr. Boucher said one thing that makes a community walkable is services: Post Office, dry cleaners, etc. Without that you still have people who have to get into their cars to get to those services. Mr. Scheuer said 300 homes don-t support a retail component. They are so close to Shelburne Rd. which is a very complete retail area. Mr. Cloutier said he lives in a modest S. Burlington home. He did not feel this concept was desirable. He indicated there are problems in Burlington with lack of parking, especially in older neighborhoods. He felt this plan has not enough parking, no backyards, buildings are so close you-11 hear neighbors- TVs. He felt it was wrong to lower standards to go back 100 years. Mr. Scheuer said the experience of people living in their communities is very positive. People in Stowe are thrilled. Mr. Sporzynski, who lives on Spear St., said he would seriously thing of living in this kind of development. He felt his friends would too. He felt it was a new concept. His wife said it is Ajust what I grew up with. Mr. Collins said a community like this Bedford, N.C., is very successful and people love it. Ms. Dopp asked if trails and bike paths would be the whole community or only for residents. Mr. Scheuer said they would be for all and would connect with other trails. Ms. Dopp asked about affordable housing. Mr. Scheuer said they want to create as much access as possible. A percentage of the housing would be available to people with median income, workforce housing.@ The affordable housing would be mixed in so it would be "invisible". DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 5 Mr. Dinklage asked what the "community open land" would be. Mr. Scheuer said the entire parcel would be owned by the community association. He anticipated that the arrangement with the Intervale Foundation would be by a long term lease. Everything not built on would be open forever. Mr. Scheuer outlined the agriculture lands. He noted that in the past this was a very rich orchard. Mr. Dinklage asked if there would be public access to the rest of the open areas. Mr. Scheuer said there are a lot of wetlands. He outlined quiet paths, rec path and the network of sidewalks. Mr. Dinklage raised the possibility of people driving to the site to walk on the trails. Ms. Fraser said she would find it attractive to have some open space without paths, so people are not walking everywhere. Mr. Kupferman felt that in general the plan follows the restricted/unrestricted areas very well. Mr. Dinklage noted that there is a significant Class 2 wetland and asked if any waivers would be asked for with respect to the 50 ft. setback from this wetland. Mr. Marshall showed the wetland and the 50 ft. setback. He said the intention is to be respective of these. The wetland would be crossed with Midland Avenue and a second internal road crossing. Some lot lines cross the CO Zone, but no buildings. Mr. Dinklage encouraged there to be no lot lines entering the CO Zone of the setback since there is no way to control what a homeowner does. Mr. Scheuer agreed. Mr. Belair noted that the city does not recognize the state classification of wetlands. He said there are several CO districts that will be completely encroached on. The Board would have to decide whether to allow this. Mr. Marshall showed some pockets of small Class 3 wetlands that fall within the project. Mr. Dinklage noted that Mr. Contryrnan had indicated the presence of a seasonal stream. Mr. Marshall showed the location of this. He said this is also protected except for 2 street crossings. Ms. Dopp asked if there is a place for children to play. Mr. Scheuer said there are a lot of shared amenities and more private space out back. Mr. Dinklage asked if this developer will build all the units. Mr. Scheuer said yes. They DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 6 protect their investment all the way from beginning to end. They will also make a commitment to agricultural and educational programs on the site. Mr. Dinklage noted the high water table and asked if there will be full basements. Mr. Scheuer said yes, that is what they prefer. He also said the whole property will be built to state and federal codes. Mr. Dinklage asked about setbacks from collector streets. Mr. Chelman said there is a rational to treat the 2 collector streets differently. The standard is like a river that you don=t cross. They want cars to go through at not over 25 mph. One way to do that is to reduce the optical affect of a street (with trees, etc.). Mr. Dinklage said the frustrations with trying to get out of the development at 25 mph. Mr. Kupferman said there are 4 dilemmas for him: density (the suggestion of increasing density for a vague affordability is a Anon -thing@ for him). He said there are no codified tradeoffs for affordability and he felt density issues should involve public discussion. Mr. Scheuer said he was convinced that there is a vehicle by which affordability can be accomplished. He stressed that this is more Atown building@ than a subdivision. He was confident they could lock in a number of homes that would be affordable to work force people. Mr. Belair noted that currently the Board couldn't allow more than 292 homes allowed by the regulations. Mr. Boucher asked about the Intervale Foundation. Mr. Scheuer said it was founded by Will Rapp of Gardeners Supply. He is trained as an urban designer. Mr. Dinklage said there would need to be a rationale to justify building in restricted areas. Mr. Marshall reviewed the history of some of the view protection areas. He said they intend to build to heights that would be allowed within the view protection area. He also noted that some of the developable areas are actually wetlands and they will not build there. He felt that nothing would be compromised by what they are putting in the restricted areas. Mr. Belair said there would have to be an assessment of the impact before a final judgment is made. Mr. Dinklage said there may need to be a trade-off. Mr. Parker noted that flooding takes place in the spring and doesn-t correspond with what is delineated as wetlands. He asked if the flow of water will be changed because homes will flood. Ms. Parker added that the area is very prone to flooding even with DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 PAGE 7 ground cover. She also noted that the planned project will totally block their view of Camel' s Hump. She felt the developers need to consider other people=s property values as well as their own. She also noted that higher density creates more demand on the infrastructure (schools, etc.). Mr. Scheuer said he would try to address the concerns of the view and flooding. He said the project will be fully engineered. Members felt they wanted a site visit before proceeding. Mr. Scheuer suggested the possibility of 2 levels of sketch plan to deal with waivers. He said they are working on some kind of agreement with the city that could survive the ages. Mr. Dinklage said it would make sense to wait until then. He noted that staff did not have a problem with setback and lot size waivers. Problems involve pavement width, radii, and sight distances. Mr. Dinklage suggested the applicants visit areas of the city where there are parking problems. He noted both the City Engineer and Director of Public Works have made very strong comments on the need for road width. Mr. Scheuer said he is willing to come in with a more in depth presentation on streets. Mr. Kupferman said he had no problems with the setbacks and would rely on city staff regarding streets. He wanted more of a sense of the agricultural components. Ms. Quimby felt the roads were a major obstacle for her and cited the need to get plows in there and to store snow. She also felt fire trucks and other emergency vehicles need to be considered. She did have density concerns. Mr. Farley agreed with Ms. Quimby. He said he had read that this is a trend in the nation but asked if the trend changes, would this development be abandoned. Mr. Scheuer said this is a way to address sprawl by reinventing the suburbs at higher densities. Mr. Dinklage said he is generally supportive but needs to understand what the city will give with regards to standards. Mr. Boucher was generally supportive and was trying to understand options. He felt the waivers requested are a long way from the standard. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2002 Page 8 Mr. Boucher then moved to continue the review until 15 October. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Application #SD-02-54 of Chase Properties and Development to construct a 20,300 sq. ft. general office building, Bowdoin St: Mr. Adams said they have added detail and a landscape plan. They will get details of lighting promptly. They also have a wetlands report. Mr. Belair noted the wetlands report says there is no impact. Mr. Adams said they will appear at the Natural Resources Committee this month. Staff asked for some species changes for landscaping, and Mr. Adams said they had no objections. Mr. Belair said the only issue is whether or not to encroach on the wetland_ Mr. Dinklage said this is a very big issue. The applicant was comfortable letting the Natural Resources Committee see their wetlands report. The approval motion, Stipulation #6 was amended to read- The issue of encroachment in to the C.O.District will be decided at Final Plat. Ms.Quimby moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-02-54 of Chase Properties subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 6 August 2002, as amended above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Boucher abstaining. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10.30 p.m. Glerk- Date South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief November 26, 2002 Ms. Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Retrovest South Village Project, Spear Street Dear Juli: As a follow-up to our meeting with the folks from Retrovest on November 20, 2002, I was asked to put in writing information regarding: - Turning radius of fire vehicles - Length of aerial ladder boom 1. We have spoken before about fire apparatus turning radius problems associated with the TND. The engines (pumper trucks) should not be too much of a problem. They have a turning radius of 24'6". If taken slowly they should be able to negotiate most of the corners which have been presented in our many meetings. The topic of most of our discussion has been our aerial ladder (tower) truck. Plain and simple, this is just a huge piece of equipment (46'6" OAL). Small turning radius' are difficult if not impossible with this vehicle. Mountable curbs may address some problem areas but probably not all. Our aerial truck is just not designed to be used in the TND type of application. 2. Boom swing of the aerial ladder can be a problem with nearby obstructions such as buildings which are too close, light posts and overhead electrical wires, and trees like I spoke of. Our truck has a 31 foot boom including bucket, minus the 9 feet which it must be away from the curb to set up leaving a nominal length of 22 feet. Page — 2 As we were summing up our meeting last Wednesday, I believe that some degree of consensus was reached when we all agreed that some of the particulars of the project just cannot be completely ironed out "pre -build". As for the size issues related to the aerial ladder truck, I wonder if a lot of time and energy is being spent trying to resolve the problems we have identified by trying to make the development fit the truck. I believe that early on Mr. Hafter and I proposed a partnership approach to acquire a new truck more properly sized to fit this development. I still believe that from a life safety standpoint it makes the most sense. It also allows the developers to retain many of the design elements which they may need to change to accommodate the larger aerial device. I look forward to reaching a positive resolution of these issues. This exciting project is important to the future of the city. Please contact me when you need to continue our discussions. Si erely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 846-4108 • FAX: (802) 846-4101 BRUCE O'NEILL, CLP DIRECTOR THOMAS HUBBARD, CLP 0y ASS'T DIRECTOR To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director Re: South Village Date: July 10, 2002 The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee reviewed the sketch Plan for South Village (Retrovest) at their meeting on Monday, July 1, 2002. The Committee supports the construction of the municipal bikeway and quiet zone paths as shown on the plan dated June 2002. MEMBER: VERMONT RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM To: Julie Beth Hoover CC: Chuck Hafter Stephanie Smith From: Jay Nadeau Date: July 16, 2002 Re: Sketch Plan Review- South Village I have looked at the sketch plans for the South Village in South Burlington, as well as the comments made by the submitting engineer concerning Water Supply. While the plans themselves do not offer much information concerning where water lines will be located, I can assume the lines will be looped and designed to our specifications in future, more detailed plans. I would like to clarify my discussion with the engineer concerning this project. First, this conversation took place almost one year ago. The engineer stated that he was working on a very preliminary project that was not yet to be made public information. He asked about water distribution for the area above Allen Road, between Spear Street and Dorset Street. I told him the area could be fed from Dorset Farms, but we would want a line to come all the way out to Spear Street. On Spear Street we would either ask that the line have a valve installed at the end for a future extension or be tied into the existing water line on Spear Street to create a distribution loop. This line should be no less than a 12" main. I also reiterated our requirements to loop the water distribution system in all projects to maintain water quality and fire flow capabilities. While we discussed this "possible" project, the issue of design flow requirements was not discussed. We did however discuss the system requirements to maintain a minimum pressure during fire flow conditions at a worst -case hydrant location. I am sure that at the time of our conversation elevations and their affect on fire flows and domestic pressures had not yet been engineered. Having read the engineer's comments for this development, proposing a design flow of 125,000 gallons per day, the engineer and project owner should be notified that the South Burlington Water Department can not supply the project with such a request due to the present storage tank capacity. As you are well aware we have maximized all available storage capacity for the High Service area in which this project is proposed. Until more storage is built for the City, which is being studied at this time, projects of this magnitude must be put on hold, or conditionally approved so that additional State required storage volume requirements are in place and on line prior to occupancy by the first customer. Please let me know if you would like me to discuss the water supply situation with the engineer. William D. Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning 868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663 Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422 wdcenv&ogether. net 8 August 2001 Ken Braverman Retrovest 70 S. Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 Dear Mr. Braverman, This letter recaps the wetlands delineations that Errol Briggs and I have performed on the Calkins Farm property on Spear Street, South Burlington. These were done on 1 and 3 August. The weather was warm and dry. Very dry conditions have developed over the past several weeks, resulting in non -saturated conditions through most of the wetland; nevertheless we are confident that our delineations are accurate. Because some of the wetlands on the site are shown on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the area, the delineations were made according to the 3-parameter methodology in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, as specified in the Vermont Wetland Rules for mapped wetlands. This methodology is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It would seem unlikely to us that the delineations would change significantly if done strictly under the 1987 Corps Manual, especially given that agriculture has been effectively abandoned in the area and the fields are now becoming well grown up to shrubs. Several data transects were taken to document the delineation (copies to follow). From west to east, the site is characterized by low rolling hills, then a broad shallow valley, then gently rising terrain to the east with large outcropping knolls, a second smaller valley, and more rising terrain. At the eastern edge, the land falls abruptly to a large forested swamp. There are several small wetland areas on the high but level land along Spear Street north of the old farmhouse, but most of the high ground and the slopes are upland. There is a broad band of wetland that bisects the property along the valley floors. These are drained by a seasonal stream that flows north to south across the property. One source of this stream is a wetland in the housing development on the southeast corner of the property. From there, the stream flows north onto the property (in the second valley), turns westerly and descends a few feet to the main valley floor, then turns south becoming the main channel. The small dug pond that is shown on the NWI map is essentially separate from the stream. Soils According to the 1974 Chittenden County Soil Survey, the wetlands have developed mostly on Covington clay (a poorly drained soil) and Livingston clay (a very poorly drained soil). The large wetland along the eastern boundary of the property has muck and peat organic soils. The uplands are characterized primarily by Vergennes clay (a moderately well drained soil), with some areas of Georgia stony loam (moderately well drained), Hinesburg fine sandy loam (well drained) and Farmington extremely rocky loam (well drained). This last occurs on the outcropping knolls. In general we found that the wetland boundaries and the mapping of the soils are in agreement although some areas of Covington soil appear to be slightly more well drained, possibly due to ditching in the past. The band of wetland in the second valley is somewhat narrower than the band of this soil as mapped. Plants. Due to the long history of agricultural use, the plant communities contain a number of species common to fields and pastures throughout Vermont. This is most evident on the upland portions of the fields, which are dominated by such plants as bedstraw (Galium mollugo) and vetch (Vicia cracca)_ The nonforested wetlands, however, are mostly dominated by sedges, especially lake sedge (Carex lacustris) and hairy -fruited sedge (C. lanuginosa). The forested areas of wetland are dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and racemed dogwood (Corpus racenlosa). It should be noted, however, that even though this species of dogwood is ranked as a "facultative wetland species" it is not a good wetland indicator on this site because it occurs abundantly on uplands as well. Apparently when tillage and pasturage were abandoned, conditions were right for this species to invade wherever the soil was sufficiently damp, even if not wetland. Also noteworthy is the fact that we observed few non-native wetland plants; invasive species such as purple loosestrife and common reed (Phragmites australis) are mostly lacking. Hydrology. The wetlands are characterized primarily by a high water table and impeded drainage rather than by surface waters. The poor permeability of the Covington and Livingston clay soils results in saturated conditions, especially where topographic relief is low. Where relief is more pronounced, as on the Vergennes clay soils on the knolls along the western side of the property, runoff is sufficient to drain the soil so that saturated conditions do not occur. The ground surface is extremely lumpy in the wetlands (and somewhat lumpy even on uplands), probably due to pasturage, with the lumps being exaggerated by frost heaving and plant tussock development in the wetlands. Because the small pond near the center of the site and the large wetland along the eastern boundary are shown on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Map for the area, those and all wetlands that are contiguous with them are Class Two wetlands under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This essentially means that all the wetlands along the valley floor are Class Two Wetlands. Such wetlands have a 50' statutory buffer zone as well. If any development is proposed in those wetlands or their buffer zones, the project will require a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. A CUD can only be granted if it is demonstrated that there will be no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the wetland. Isolated wetlands would be considered Class Three wetlands, which are basically outside the jurisdiction of the Vermont Wetland Rules, except that impacts to them f considered under water quality criteria of Act 250 and the Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program. The Corps has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States, including wetlands. In Vermont many activities of up to one acre of impact can be allowed under the Vermont General Permit #58. For this permit, review is undertaken by the Corps in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. If no concerns are raised, and the Corps is satisfied that steps have been taken to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts, then a permit may be granted. If impacts of over one acre are contemplated, then an Corps Individual Permit would be required. Such a permit is usually difficult, costly, and time-consuming to obtain, as it requires a demonstration of (public) need and an extensive alternative sites analysis. I understand that there will be a site visit with April Moulaert of the Vermont Wetlands Office on 15 August. At that time we can review the wetlands delineations and go over any concerns that she may have with the proposed project. It would also be well to schedule a site visit with Marty Abair or Mike Adams of the Corps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur V. Gilman avg/s cc: Dave Marshall Wetlands on the Calkins Farm: Series Fla #'s Notes A 1-17 A small isolated wetland just behind the residence on Spear Street; note that this also connects to Y B 1-5 A small isolated wetland on a knoll south of the residence C 1-146 Marks the west side of the main central wetland D 1-189 Marks most of the east side of the main wetland (see F) E 1-6 A small isolated wetland on the valley floor, near D F 1-31 Marks the remainder of the east side of the main wetland G 1-4 A small isolated wetland on the east side of the main wetland, near F H 1-29 Together with I, marks out an island within the main wetland I 1-40 See H J 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street K 1-4 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street L 1-21 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street M 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street; this outlets at a culvert under Spear Street N 1-9 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street O 1-5 A small isolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; may fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" P _ 1-5 A-smallisolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; ma fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" Q 1-6 Isolated wetland on slope R 1-5 Isolated wetland area on slope S 1-9 Isolated wetland area on slope T 1-60 Defines the western boundary of the large forested wetland that Forms much of the s eastern boundary of the property U V 1-8 1-7 A small isolated wetland area along the south boundary, near D Small wetland along surficial drainage course, in shrubby field, drains to D W 1-11 Similar to V and in same drainageway, connects to D X 1-15 Isolated wetland at toe of slope, near C Y 1-29 Wetland along old dug ditch, near height of land behind residence, connects to A Z 1-5 Isolated wetland near old spring house behind residence AA 1-10 Depressional, isolated wetland under powerlines BB 1-17 With CC, marks wetland on level terrain, valley floor, near but isolated from C CC 1-9 See BB DD 1-11 Isolated wetland along old drainage course on slope, drains to C 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 November 22, 2002 Ms. Stephanie Smith, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD - SD-02-44 Retrovest Properties Sketch Plan - Additional Information Dear Ms. Smith: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com We would like to thank you and the remaining City of South Burlington Staff for taking the time to meet with us on November 20, 2002 to review the revised street standards for the proposed South Village project. We have revised the plans and supporting traffic documents to reflect the discussion points from our meeting. We have enclosed 10 sets of 11" x 17"'s and 5 sets of full size plans for distribution. We will forward one full size set of plans to you shortly for distribution to Mr. jay Nadeau at the Water Department. A summary of the submittal is outlined below: Full Size Plans 1. Revised Site Plan C-3A - This plan reflects the latest revisions to the proposed road configuration. Sheets C-3B and 3C have not yet been revised, but can still be used to depict the general character of the project due to the minor changes in road layouts. 2. New Off -Street Parking Diagram P-1 - This plan depicts the proposed off-street parking capacity based upon the type of product offered within the project. 3. New On -Street parking Summary P-2 - This plan depicts the on street parking potential on both the public streets and private streets as well as a summary of the total parking potential on the property. 4. New Proposed Street Sections - These three sheets (without sheet numbers) depict the typical sections proposed for the project. Ms. Stephanie Smith Page two November 22, 2002 11" x 17" Plans 1- 3 above plus.... 5. Public/Private Street Delineation - This plan identifies the streets to be taken over by the City versus those proposed to remain private. Bruce Hoar's comments concentrated on the public streets depicted on this plan. 6. Street Section Assignment Plan - This plan identifies the locations of the proposed typical sections. 7. Typical street Sections - This is the reduced size version of Item 4 above. 8. Trip Generation Analysis 9. Turning Movement Allocation Plan 10. ADT Assignments 11. Streets under 400 ADT 12. Streets Under 100 ADT Lastly, we have enclosed a revised waiver request which reflects the latest revisions agreed upon during our last meeting. This completes our submittal of the additional information that you have requested. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Enclosures 5 Full Size and 10 Reduced Size Plans as outlined above Revised Waiver Request cc: K. Braverman (plans under separate cover) CAI Le1\0I243\Smith2.wpd �I Use I Spear St & Swift St Model N I E S W 33 21 174 257 341 55 147 195 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 30 x �bMPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes 'Comparison of Committed Network vs 15 mph Midland Connection /18/2002 Committed Network Volumes Committed Network + Midland Ave Connection South Village - 0.9 mile 15 mph connection se Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave glodel N E S W 82 0 0 254 T 499 0 258 0 0 0 115 105 1314 581 0 374 359 $use Spear St &Barstow Rd del N E S W 0 69 146 0 569 0 291 0 154 216 0 0 4445 723 285 437 0 Base Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0 5 56 0 T 659 0 423 0 L 25 43 0 0 1211 684 49 479 0 a 0 x c�• 0 a Build Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R 33 21 175 258 T 342 54 147 187 L 75 188 128 49 1,658 450 263 450 494 Build Spear St &Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R 82 3 0 229 T 501 14 259 37 L 10 0 104 104 1,343 592 17 363 370 Build Spear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 0 58 143 0 T 570 0 291 0 L 130 216 0 0 1408 700 275 433 0 Build Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N E IS W R 0 5 1 45 0 T 660 0 423 0 L 25 40 0 0 1.199 686 45 468 0 15mph Comparison Percent Difference - Committed Network vs Midland Connector Compare Compare Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0.0% -19.0% T 0.3% 0.1% L 0.0% --, -1.0% 0.3% -6.7% -2.1% Sear St &Swift St Model N E S W R 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2%0.5% T 0.1% -2.1% 0.0% -4.0% L 0.0% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.4% -0.4% 0.1% -0.3% 0.1% -1.3% Compare Sear St &Allen Rd -Midland Ave Model N E S W R 0.0% -9.8% T 0.3% 0.2% L -10.0% -1.1% 2.2% 1.9% -3.0% 3.2% Compare Sear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -15.7% -2.1% T 0.2% -0.1% L -15.7% 0.3% -2.5% -3.2% -3.6% -0.7% 40,41^ pl d1 0 CIO cl;l- F4L;MPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes cOomparison of Committed Network vs 20 mph Midland Connection /1812002 +�,mmitted Network Volumes Committed Network + Midland Ave Connection Mi. [South Village - 0.9 mile 20 mph connection] Ise Spear St & Swift St N E S W 33 21 174 257 r 341 55 147 195 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 A se se Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave odel N E S W 82 0 0 254 499 0 258 0 0 0 115 105 1314 581 0 374 359 Spear St &Barstow Rd N E S W 0 69 146 0 Ldel1445 569 0 291 0 154 216 0 0 723 285 437 0 se Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N E Is W 0 5 56 0 659 0 423 0 25 43 0 0 1211 684 49 479 0 Build I Spear St & Swift St Model N JE S W R 33 20 199 269 T 351 54 149 176 L 66 187 129 49 1,682 450 261 476 494 Build Spear St &Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N JE Is W R 81 6 0 228 T 499 15 259 40 L 42 0 103 104 1,377 621 22 362 372 Build Spear St & Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 0 58 143 0 T 568 0 291 0 L 128 219 0 0 1406 696 277 433 0 Build Spear St &Nowland Farm Rd Model N I E Is W R 0 1 5 1 21 0 T 689 1 0 1 450 0 L 16 1 40 1 0 0 1,221 705 1 45 1 471 0 20mph Comparison Percent Difference - Committed Network vs Midland Connector Compare ISpearSt& Swift St Model N JE S W R 0.0% -4.4% 13.9% 4.8% T 2.7% -3.5% 1.2% -9.7% L -11.9% -0.2% 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% 0.1% -1.2% 6.0% -1.3% Compare ar St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R -7.3% -61.6% T 4.6% 6.4% L -36.5% -7.5% 0.9% 3.1% -7.5% -1.5% Sear St &Allen Rd -Midland Ave Model N E S W R -1.1% -10.4% T -0.1% 0.2% L -10.7% -1.1% 4.7% 6.9% -3.2% 3.5% Compare Sear St &Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -16.8% -2.21 T -0.1 % -0.1 L -17.0% 1.5% -2.7% -3.7% -3.0% -0.8% CCMPO Transportation Model Turning Movement Volumes Comparison of Predicted Model Volumes with Current Volumes 10/18/2002 2002 PM Peak Hour Counts (not adjusted) 2005 Committed Network Model Volumes PM count Spear St & Swift St North East South West Right 62 38 114 206 Thru 179 150 204 154 Left 86 155 141 52 1541 327 343 459 412 PM count Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave North East South West Right 188 141 Thru 458 325 Left 103 171 1386 646 0 428 312 PM count Spear St & Barstow Rd North East I South West R 102 80 T 446 315 L 135 124 1202 581 226 395 0 2002 PM Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd North East I South West Right 49 19 20 1 Thru 749 2 437 1 Left 29 15 1 22 1345 827 36 458 24 Base Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R 33 21 174 257 T 341 55 147 195 L 75 188 128 49 1664 450 264 450 500 Base Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R 82 0 0 254 T 499 0 258 0 L 0 0 115 105 1314 581 0 374 359 Base S ear St & Barstow Rd Model N E S W R 69 146 0 T a723 0 291 0 L 216 0 0 1445 285 437 0 Base Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R 0 5 56 0 T 659 0 423 0 L 25 43 0 0 1211 684 49 479 0 Model vs. Count Comparison Percent Difference - Count vs Model Compare Spear St & Swift St Model N E S W R -46.1 % -45.1 % 53.0% 24.6% T 90.7% -63.0% -27.9% 26.8% L -12.4% 21.1 % -9.1 % -6.4% 8.0% 37.6% -23.0% -2.0% 21.5% Compare Spear St & Allen Rd - Midland Ave Model N E S W R -56.4% 80.3% T 9.0% -20.5% L 12.1 % -38.7% -5.2% -10.0% -12.6% 15.1% Compare Spear St & Barstow Rd Model N E S W R -32.0% 82.4% T 27.5% -7.7% L 14.4% 73.9% 20.2% 24.5% 26.1 % 10.5% Compare Spear St & Nowland Farm Rd Model N E S W R -100.0% -72.4% 179.5% -100.0% T -12.1 % -100.0% -3.3% -100.0% L -13.3% 188.9% -100.0% -100.0% 10.0% -17.3% 34.9% 4.5% -100.0% CCMPO Chittenden County Metropolitan Manning Organization 00 Dorset Street Suite 22 South Burlington, VT 05403-6241 t 802, 660.4071 f 802.660.4079 WWW. ccmpo. org infodccmpo. org Mem. orandum To: Juli Beth Hoover, Rick Chellman From: David Roberts Date: October 21, 2002 Subject: Midland Ave connection modeling In response to our meeting on October 11, 2002, I have used the CCMPO transportation model to examine the potential volumes of a connection through the South Village Development between Spear St and Midland Ave. The analysis performed does not account for any additional traffic due to the South Village development. Future traffic volumes include existing or expected development by 2005 in Chittenden County. The model network was based on the "Committed Network" used in the analysis for our long-range transportation plan which includes several high -priority projects, such as the Southern Connector and Shelburne Rd reconstruction. For the purpose of this study, no new segments of the Circumferential Highway or additional I-89 ramps were included. Figure 1 is a map of PM Peak Hour traffic volumes in 2005 with the committed network. The figures may be difficult to understand — they are straight from our transportation modeling software which is not very user friendly. You can use I-89 and US 7 as references to orient layout of the street network in the model. The South Village connector was examined in two separate scenarios: 1. Midland Ave connecting as a 15 mph, 0.9 mile link [see Figure 2 for volumes] 2. Midland Ave connecting as a 20 mph, 0.9 mile link [see Figure 3 for volumes] Table 1 below summarizes the traffic volume projections for the proposed roadway through the South Village Development. The difference in speeds does lead to a significant difference in projected traffic volumes on the facility. Rick may want to examine the site layout using scale drawings of the sketch plan and the proposed traffic controls at the development's intersections to develop a more accurate estimate of the travel speeds and distance of the proposed connection to Midland Ave. The model can be rerun with a different speed and distance combination if necessary. G Communities working together to meet Chittenden County°'s transportation pearls Table 1: 2005 PM Peak dour TranSDortation Windpi Ifni Midland Ave A Midland Ave Allen Rd to Dorset Farms Dorset Farms to Dorset Street (South Village) (Dorset Farms) Eastbound Westbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total 2005 Committed - - - 71 193 264 Network 2005 South Village 47 17 64 54 147 201 15mph 2005 South Village 82 22 104 53 115 168 20m h The attached MS Excel Spreadsheet includes a comparison of the turning movement count data between the scenarios and with the counts performed this summer. There are three separate worksheets for the various comparisons. The turning movement count data on local streets is not as reliable as using the model for regional projections. When an analysis requiring accurate turning movements is performed, we generally use existing ground counts as the base and then use the model to project the increase in traffic. This is a more suitable use of turning movement count data from the model. To estimate the average daily traffic on a road we generally multiply the PM peak hour projection by 10. This results in an estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) through the South Village development of 640 to 1040 vehicles per day which does not include any of the South Village site generated traffic. The Vermont State Design Standards recommend a minimum of 9 foot lanes with 2 foot shoulders on rural local roads with Average Daily Traffic between 400 and 1500 vehicles per day. While the South Village development is not "rural", I believe the standards provide a useful minimum guideline. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this information. U) 0 /'U /�� l O U 30 � 3 i who W� Za Cm O 0 4-)W H . C � u u � 0 U= L w �0� m � 0 N L O (n 8 Figure 1 — 2005 PM Peak Dour Traffic Volumes — Committed Network •'44,)D 60;5d0u•x. iix6PDo.Axgx.x�;tx�h .Axb.AXg x� Hx(-_8L-j♦,KP)t1+xOx■A L ixJ r�.®�u�x6P�i�Ap�A,nd�.A •,uH■dvr�.p�.,dn� xA6xT ux-1P�#=P7=�� +A� o bex� = x.ou a A �T/ i 0m ,v (/�0''y1- r LL L a 3L; W i Cwg m 0< 0)0a z> CQ� riJu LH Dz m�W O O L N 0 Figure 2 — 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Midland Ave —15 mph X®H�®), -� ®��X � �♦ �XJ�1� d�o �■.'�u�� �sJ,X�H�>�®����H�'�C,�u XD+x To i P)pOp� .� rvm Tui 0 'a O r a 3Ln I� W, CWm >: OQ; N 0p0 �z ; C Q .r-iJ9 H i L�� E[)LOu 0 0 L N O Cn Figure 3 — 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Midland Ave — 20 mph Vu®8p,�®Zx®oPu i� 8o -jHuOx�*X,.H•A o®A®xb, 8* =d�J (08=® ( , •Sty#OL d C ' , CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 100 Dorset Street Suite 22 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 660-4071 FAX (802) 660-4079 JOB SHEET NO. OF _ CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 1. A d 3r G2 1'" U 'Lst ?r^i--I y 3yi r z4q 7% g2a e-36 F lay 5'3R' �g Fr 5 n ST c5551 •�' S>' J 1 y ,�•-21 11 S.eoq... So6R- 99 �• � 411 154 IY1 lea l r ;bg 4 r 421 `Ib? 156 t —r-- J 45 576 �v3 i5re.�CNgy %., 39 —7L h T 45 3q5 ti•1s,M 7yb .13 r i.i y bLlJip �{[ 1 rq 4551 `14S"• 436 "5� 35S 45 �4q L a ib 30} g 3 ra w ow 'DEW'ELD lj (—vD ,r-15 L �.4 SnFt`lo} $D;R•la5 r22-�' rgca� a a T � Ns.+✓w► , 3o•r y� .1l h 462 I13 r? �I 4A•b 'PNeAsw� W 5051z. 1-4 - >ti aaG 4n S 318 r--'—� r—� I tj SoB55 T3 �• 32 { itii y Io1 3 5 __•-•45 3. >o6R-Io8 N w1� 9 125 Lill l3`I 54S �s4 �� yH 35 �to11 m 7 4i l(A yr �i n? ya; r C KEQCTA :AJI-010 �uQ Ste a Rp L y r 11 tog j4El• Obi h`H5 7•^ �? '�4 N5 T [ fox J T j$R[Srp•,.> w' 3t6 8ID � 1� { 1zo--� ` '(!-I9'(!-I3�t L v lye F• re 1V O T�}rning Movement CoMs (NOT ADJUST D x = x#uHA, u DgEQOr�pDJ 0=8u�OJ ■ 4L Aai► L �A).4 PIT-(5Tu rya' 4g' ' Ho�oA®XA '�0����xo) e� g;jT4oL►oA; (OxixAuO O ugu) ►XAXuOAHA � Ox DH(5 uH '�Y � �b ■®x ��I o®�8�® 08�x =► ®x■) Ax=� DO1r'o yp =) A A x■�AOx Ox= AAJst T I #-4AI��AJ4 (DfXx ®xOrxtT IITA� ��►T (J �O� l ►) lIo) 6� \� i ) 9tTd ih -1 Ta=A$ I T�JA►bAT=Oi SENT BY: RETnOVEST COMPANIES; MEMO OC7-7-02 14:31; _. 1 , The Retrovest Companies a u i i D t K s a, o C v[ l o P 1 e s 802 863 1339; TO: Stephanie Smith, Ray Belair FROM: Ken Braverman, Vivc President DATE: 10/7"02 RF: South Village - Reschedule Sketch Plan review As discussed, we would like to reschedule our Sketch Plan meeting with the DRB from October 15 to December 3, 2002. This additional time will allow for the preparation of more comprehensive and detailed street design plans for staff and board review_ Pleasedo not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. PAGE 212 70 South Winooski Avenue Barlington, VT 1)5401-3830 802-863-a323 8G0-679-1929 F 802-863.1339 www re:trovestcvm South Village Sketch Plan Submittal June 14, 2002 Request for Waivers The following waivers are requested in support of the proposed plan for South Village, a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) with residentially scaled streets and traditional village layout. Planned Residential Developments Section Title Description & Reason 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A. Minimum right-of-way width for collector from 80' to 60' B. Minimum right-of-way width for Local street from 80' to (50' or 35') C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (26' or 20') D. Minimum pavement width for Local street from 30' to (18' to 24'). E. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 100' F. Minimum radius of curves for Local street from 300' to 75' G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' I. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150' J. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). 26.201 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement of an easement or right-of-way of at least 20' to 18' (for rear lane access). 26.202 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement limiting the number of lots being served by a private right-of-way to three after which a public street shall be required. Request is to allow up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane) South Village Request for waivers Page two June 14, 2002 Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The request is to waive the following requirements: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,600 SF. B. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40' C. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' D. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%. E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61%. F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF per unit to 3,600 SF. I. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60' J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%. L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%. M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10. N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 10' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway. ATTACHMENT ONE STREET SECTION COMPARISON South Village - Request for Waivers %' REAR FRL>NT PAVEMENT WIDTH FRONT SETBACK 5ET5ACw< GO -0i SETBACK PUBLIC, RO W. Collector Street - South Village Standards PUBLIC R.O.W. Collector Street - City Standards South Village Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington Vermont 02.01027.03 - July 29, 2002 02000 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Scale: 1 " = 30' 19 Vandeventer Avenue Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Telephone 609-683-3600 Fox 609-6883-0054 Internet www.Irk.com Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Planning Interiors Research k REAR MONT PAVEMENT WIDTH FRONT REAR SETBACK SETBACK 5ETBAGK I 5ETBAGK PUBLIC R.O.W. South Village Street Sections The Retrovest Companies • Burlington Vermont 02.01027.03 • July 29, 2002 ©2000 Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neighborhood Street - South Village Standards PLeUc R.O.W. Local Street - City Standards Scale: 1" = 30' 19 Vandeventer Avenue Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Telephone 609-683-3600 Fax 609-6883-0054 Internet www.Irk.com Memphis Nashville Princeton Architecture Planning Interiors Research ATTACHMENT TWO PRELIMINARY LOT DIAGRAMS South Village - Request for Waivers ILLAGE • AUMI PM M a-, mWoulawwrl rl PM6A AA I sis .41 r qq :Mum mm LOT DIAGRAMS LEGEND House Garage Oft 20fr 60fr Porch/Stoop Privacy Area LOT DIAGRAMS LEGEND House Garage oa zoa eoa Porch/Stoop Privacy Area The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S SOUTH VILLAGE SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL Revised July 30, 2001 Request for Waivers As outlined in Section 25.15 of the Zoning Regulations, Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) are a planning instrument used to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and more efficient use of land". In an effort to achieve and exceed the planning goals set -forth for the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), we are seeking approval as a PRD and requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section 6.607. These waivers are necessary to successfully achieve the City's planning goals for the SEQ. These goals include: • Open Space & Environmental Preservation; • Pedestrian -Orientation and Traffic Calming; and • Providing a Mix of Housing Types. Open Space & Environmental Preservation "It is a goal of this City to promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the open and special character of the Southeast Quadrant. The City will strive to encourage well planned residential development at densities and layouts that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas, and scenic views" Goal Statement, Chapter VIII 2001 Comprehensive Plan By combining the principles of ecological planning and Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), the South Village plan was designed to minimize the project's building footprint by clustering development. The use of narrow lots and neighborhood scaled streets allow for the creation of a compact village setting and the protection and preservation of wetland, habitat, and agricultural areas. In an effort to achieve these open space and environmental preservation goals, we request waivers to the following requirements outlined in Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com A. Minimum right-of-way width for Collector from 80' to 60' - This waiver is required to facilitate a compact village -scaled community by allowing buildings to be located closer to the street, thus preserving large contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines within the right-of-way. B. Minimum right-of-way width for Local street from 60' to: 50' (Neighborhood Street). 35' (Private Lane — one way) This waiver is required to facilitate a compact village -scaled community by allowing buildings to be located closer to the street, thus preserving large contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines within the right- of-way. C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to: 26' (Collector II - 2 lanes, parking on one side) 20' (Collector I - 2 lanes, no parking) This waiver is required to facilitate a compact village scaled community by decreasing the levels of imperious surfaces thereby reducing environmental impacts and decrease the volume of stormwater. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. D. Minimum pavement width for Local street from 30' to: 24' (Neighborhood Street- 2 lanes, parking on one side). 18' (Private Lane — One way, parking on one side) 14' (Private Rear Lane Access) This waiver is required to facilitate a compact village scaled street -grid and layout that promotes clustered development and the preservation of open space and environmental resources. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 10' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway. South Village - Request for Waivers 2 This waiver is required to facilitate a compact village scaled community by allowing the buildings to be located closer to the street, thus preserving large contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines within the right-of-way. See attached street sections for a side -by -side comparison of City and South Village street design standards. Pedestrian -Orientation, Street Design and Traffic Calming Greater incentives to promote walking and bicycling can and should be implemented to minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation. In addition, pedestrians in an automobile -oriented environment must receive appropriate consideration. 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII The City should study the issue of "traffic cahning" and develop a plan of recommended traffic calming techniques. The plan should identify neighborhood streets that are in need of traffic calming improvements and include specific improvement for those neighborhoods. 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII Streets form the fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists. The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision" design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria that are appropriate for auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The ITE created in 1999 a document establishing a different set of criteria and design philosophies entitled Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines. A copy of the Guidelines has been enclosed to facilitate the City's review process. The South village plan includes a variety of street types that have been designed and laid out to encourage a balance among all of the users of the street: motorist and non - South Village - Request for Waivers 3 motorists alike. Designed in accordance with the ITE Traditional Neighborhood Guidelines, each South Village street type is designed for specific use and conditions based upon projected vehicular and pedestrian use, desired parking conditions, environmental conditions, public emergency access, and streetscape character. These standards are designed to calm traffic and foster a safe pedestrian environment, while maximizing interconnectivity. In an effort to achieve the goal of creating a walkable and pedestrian -friendly community that will not require future traffic calming improvements, we are requesting the following waivers: 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A) Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to: 26' (Village Collector II — 2 lanes, parking one side) 20' (Village Collector I — 2 lanes, no parking) This waiver is requested to support the traffic canning efforts within each neighborhood area. (Note: This request corresponds to the previously requested minimum right-of-way width for Collector fi-on2 80' to 60'.) B) Minimum pavement width for Local Street from 30' to: 24' (Neighborhood Street — 2 lanes, parking one side) 18' (Lane — One way, parking one side) This waiver is requested to support the traffic canning efforts within each neighborhood area. (Note: This request corresponds to the previously requested waiver outlining the niinimuni right-of-way width for Local Streets) Q Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 100'. The project will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms to the Allen Street intersection but seeks to reduce the travel speeds through the introduction of narrower street and tighter center line radii consistent with the goals of creating livable neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut through traffic through the project area. The goal of reducing commuter or cut through traffic is supported by the presence of Barstow Road just to the south of the project area. South Village - Request for Waivers 4 D) Minimum radius of curves for Local street from 300' to 75' - The intent is to utilize smaller radii within the neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the creation of livable neighborhoods. E) Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. F) Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. G) Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150'. With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced. H) Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. I) Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. J) Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. K) Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items H through J. South Village - Request for Waivers 5 See attached street sections for a side -by -side comparison of City and South Village street design standards. Mix of Housing ypes The type of residential development that has occurred in the Quadrant in the past 20 years has been primarily upper income housing. The City strongly encourages a variety of housing types in the Quadrant, not only in terms of development densities and design, but in terms of affordability. A variety of development patterns and layouts as well as both single and multifamily units should be promoted. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Chapter VIII, Southeast Quadrant The South Village master plan is comprised of a series of linked neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will include a mix of housing types. A diversity of housing types enables citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within the community. Lot dimensions throughout South Village are appropriately scaled to individual housing types. The rnix of village -scaled housing and lot types will include cottages, single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. See attached plans that illustrate preliminary South Village housing and lot types. In an effort to achieve the goal of providing a mix of housing types, we are requesting the following waivers: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements - The following waivers are requested for single, two fanzily and multi family buildings to allow for a greater mix of housing on lots that have dimensional characteristics that correspond to individual village -scaled housing types. A) Minimum Lot Size B) Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets C) Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets D) Max. Building Coverage E) Max. Lot Coverage F) Front Yard Setback G) Rear Yard Setback H) Side Yard Setback I) Minimum Lot Size South Village - Request for Waivers In addition to the previously described waivers, we are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for the following requests: Affordable Housing The City should explore creative zoning techniques and work with developers to encourage affordable housing in the Quadrant. The City should explore such zoning methods as density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing. It is important that affordable housing projects be done in a manner and design which promotes the preservation of open space, natural resources, and scenic views. 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VIII As part of the South Village municipal permitting process we are requesting a density bonus for affordable housing. Each dwelling unit received as a bonus (above the allowable density of approximately 290) will be allocated as an affordable unit. Affordable units shall be defined as per the Regional Plan. Article III Conservation and Open Space District Section 3.106 (Wetland and Buffers) The South Village design process began with a detailed ecological inventory. This inventory included review of the site hydrology, wildlife observation, and assessment of adjacent land -uses and their potential to impact the South Village property. Field research indicates that much of the 242 acre site has been significantly impacted by years of livestock grazing and the predominance of invasive exotic plant species. As a result, many of the property's resources, including wetlands, are deteriorated and declining. Using a combination of compact neighborhood design and ecological planning practices, there is an opportunity to protect and restore the portions of the South Village site that contain the greatest ecological value. The proposed plan includes several encroachments into the C.O. District. Class III Wetland and associated buffers will be eliminated and/or impacted in order to achieve the following design goals: Clustered Development: To facilitate the clustering of homes. away from identified wildlife habitat, Class II wetlands, and areas containing greater ecological value we are seeking waivers to eliminate and/or impact isolated Class III wetlands and associated buffers within the project's Village Center. South Village - Request for Waivers Ecologically Designed Storm Water Management: Throughout the proposed South Village plan are encroachments into the C.O. District (Class III Wetlands and associated buffers) that support the development of a comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). We believe that this is consistent with the uses allowed within the C.O. District. Because of the importance of this stormwater management component to the overall design goals of the community as well as the permitting requirement for the project, there will be limited potential for traditional residential activities to adversely affect these areas. These areas will be actively managed and protected by easements precluding the need to further protect them through the modification of property lines. Approval for Lots with no Road Frontage 26.201 We are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for allowing an easement or right-of-way of at least 18' rather than 20'. This request will provide for appropriately scaled rear lane access. 26.202 We are seeking positive determination from the Development Review Board for allowing up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane). This request will allow for more efficient land -use and the clustering of development. An alternative is to propose private streets built to public pavement standards but with reduced widths. South Village - Request for Waivers g ATTACHMENT THREE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Chester "Rick" Chellman, P.E. TND Engineering South Village - Request for Waivers T N D TNID ENGINEERING TRAFFIC, TND, TRANSPORTATION AND CONSULTING P.O. BOX 388, OSSIPEE. NH 03964 603.539.5999; FAX 539-7912 w .tndenglneving.00m Memorandum in Support of Request for Waivers To: Ken Braverman and David Schuer, The Retrovest Companies From: Chester "Rick" Chellman, P.E. Date: 7/31 /02 Re: Request for Waivers -South Village, South Burlington, Vermont As a more walkable, neighborhood -scaled community, the concept of South Village and many of its goals and objectives embodied in its design find support - both explicit and implicit- in the State and local planning legislation and regulations. In fact, the City patterns the purposes of its regulations very well with the State enabling legislation, which is where this memorandum will commence. Act 200, Vermont's Planning and Development Act (The Act) is the enabling legislation that provides the City with the authority to prepare and implement its Comprehensive Plan, its Subdivision Regulations and its Zoning Ordinance. As such, several of the provisions of The Act provide a relevant backdrop for South Village, and the following rationale for waivers from certain provisions in the City's regulations.' The Act sets forth several criteria and goals relating to the development of land and public planning documents. The Act notes as general purposes that land should be developed so as to promote: "public health ... comfort... (and) good civic design." The Act further seeks to protect "residential, agricultural and other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic."2 Finally, The Act notes that it "shall be used", in pertinent part, to: " maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers," specifically including the encouragement of "intensive residential development... primarily in See: "Section 102 Statement of Purpose", in the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations; Chapter 1, B "Authority" in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and "Purpose" in the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations. 2 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a). PnnP 1 areas related to community centers" as opposed to "strip development along highways." 3 South Village has been planned in a manner that is wholly consistent with these broad criteria. In order to achieve these goals, and other goals more fully enumerated below, South Village is hereby proposed as a Planned Residential Development so that it will afford an opportunity to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land.'4 As a form of development that is implied in the local and State-wide goals, but also as a form not fully contemplated in several of the City's land use regulations South Village is also requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section 6.607 of the Zoning Regulations that will be necessary to successfully achieve these goals. A general overview of some of the design philosophies, the specific waivers, and the underlying rationale for their approval follow below. Street Design: Relevant History and TND Design Streets form one of the most fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists.5 The details of the streets in South Village form a critical part of the overall makeup of the project. Before detailing the specific waiver requests, some additional information is required. The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision" design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria that are appropriate for auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The ITE established a committee to pursue the goals of identifying the design distinctions between TND and CSD projects and prepare a document establishing a different set of criteria and design philosophies appropriate for TND street design. This effort, including an approximate two-year peer review process, culminated in the adoption in 1999 of the ITE's Traditional 3 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 (c). 4 Section 26.15 of the City of South Burlington Zoning Ordinance 5 In 1992, hurricane Andrew destroyed vast areas of southern Florida CSD, such that no buildings or other above ground improvements remained. The author of this memo worked with a team of other volunteers who attempted to re -plat the "sprawl" into neighborhoods. This was found to be impossible without a wholesale taking of all properties due to the layout of the streets. Pn¢P ?, Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Guidelines). The Guidelines note in the Introduction the following: Street design involves the design of some of the most important, and most used, public spaces. While always true, this is especially so for TND design where the designers' perspectives are broadened to include the divergent needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, motor vehicles and the street's relationships to adjacent and future land uses, and many factors must be compared, considered and decided in order to develop the final design solutions.s Designers have also inquired recently into the origins of many current CSD street design requirements. Research has shown, somewhat surprisingly today, that the genesis of many current CSD street design criteria came about in the 1950's when the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO, the predecessor agency to today's AASHTO) civic defense committee's determination that all streets- including residential- should be designed to accommodate evacuation before, and cleanup after the nuclear war that was expected to occur.' One particular problem that this design intent introduced was streets wide enough to accommodate very heavy equipment for the expected cleanup process; when the streets are devoid of such equipment, however, they are usually too wide for the more prevalent automobiles and the autos often end up traveling at speeds that are not appropriate in neighborhoods.8 As a result, many communities today, South Burlington included among them, are investigating "traffic calming" as a means of dealing with speeding cars. Streets that are appropriately designed at the outset, however, usually do not require traffic calming measures. The streets proposed for South Village have been designed and laid out to encourage such a balance among all of the users of the street: motorists and non -motorists. This is further in keeping with provisions of The Act which again notes that it "shall be used" to provide safe transportation systems and that "highways... and other means of transportation should be mutually supportive, balanced and integrated."9 Few would argue with the intent to "balance" all of the users of a street. When it comes to details, however, some of the conflicts with CSD become apparent. 6 Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC October 1999, page 2. Street Design: Design Intent, History and Emerging Concepts, Chester "Rick" Chellman, Urban Land Institute, Land Development, Spring -Summer, 1995, page 14. 8 Ibid, page 16. 9 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 ( c ), 4. P'lve ' On a local residential street, the design speed of the street is often not considered or prescribed, but it is implicit in certain criteria such as minimum centerline radius. The Subdivision Regulations require minimum centerline radii of 1000', 500' and 300' respectively for Arterial, Collector and Local streets. These radii equate to design speeds of 45 mph, 37 mph and 30 mph respectively.10 Vehicular Speed, Safety and Walking While motor vehicle speed is important in all neighborhoods, it is particularly important in a TND project: The desired upper limit of actual motor vehicle speeds on TND streets is approximately 20 mph (29.3 ft/sec). This speed allows the creation of the safest streets for a TND or other pedestrian enhanced neighborhood. Because a vehicle's kinetic energy, sound, and the difficulty of seeing the driver all increase dramatically with vehicular speed, speeds at and below speed 20 mph are also the speeds which are generally the most pleasing aesthetically for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian perceptions are also very important; it has been noted that it is actually the "feeling of being unsafe, the experience of a certain threat emanating from traffic" which ends up dedicating streets to primarily vehicular travel and discouraging pedestrian traffic." Data and analyses also show that pedestrians' perceptions may be grounded in kinetic realities because of the substantial differences associated with pedestrian injuries when vehicular speeds exceed 20 mph. Research has shown that pedestrians are usually not seriously injured when hit by a car moving at a speed of less than 20 mph (30km/h) at the time of impact; "if impact speeds are between 20 and 35 mph (30 and 55 km/h), injuries are usually serious, while at or above 35 mph (55 km/h) they usually endanger life or are fatal".12 Motor vehicle accident reconstruction analysis techniques provide another indication of the likely degree of injury associated with vehicle speed at the time of impact. The results of the actual analytical formula used to approximate what is terms the "abbreviated severity index", or AIS, are depicted below; an AIS of 6 indicates a probable pedestrian fatality. 10 Assuming no superelevation. With superelevation the implicit design speeds are higher. 11 Street Design: Design Intent, History and Emerging Concepts, Ibid, page 16. '` ITE Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, p. 64 N OP. 4 Vehicle Impact Speed vs. Pedestrian Injury (initial impact only) 8.0 AIS 6.0 Severity 4.0 (6=fatal) 2.0 0.0 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 Impact Speed (mph) Finally with respect to vehicle speed, the time required for a driver to perceive a need to stop, decide to stop and the actually stop a moving motor vehicle is a three -step process. The first two steps of this process have been abbreviated below as "reaction", with "braking" indicating the distance a car will slide after the brakes have been applied. a� 350' 300' 250' 200' A 150' 100' 50' Reaction & Braking Distances v. Speed 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Vehicle Speed (mph) 0 Braking ❑ Reaction Vehicle speeds of 30 to 35 mph are not unusual in and near CSD projects, as can be seen above and in the previous chart the much greater energy associated with higher vehicle speeds is a serious matter. The perception of danger associated with such streets diminishes the "walkability" of such streets. Paae i On the other hand, streets such as TND streets where moving vehicles are a balanced part of the street- on equal levels of importance as bicyclists and pedestrians- walkability increases, as does actual walking, which in turn increases the probability of a more healthy neighborhood due to the increased walking. The Surgeon General's Office website estimates that in 1999, 61 % of US adults were obese and that daily walking would be a great aid to reducing that percentage and improving overall health. s Where a TND project such as South Village is actively promoted as more pedestrian friendly, certain reasonable expectations are created in the minds of prospective residents and visitors. 14 It is incumbent on the design team to assist in meeting those expectations and walkability is certainly one such expectation. The street elements proposed for South Village have been proposed as they are to promote and enhance walkability while at the same time accommodating reasonable vehicular use. The comprehensive plan states that it is a goal of the city to "improve and expand all modes of transportation .... with equal access for all income levels and abilities.05 To effect this goal requires special attention to pedestrians, who are often forgotten in the design process. While the City's street design standards do include sidewalk specifications, the definition of "street" in the City's Subdivision Regulations does not mention non -vehicular use at all.ls Seniors, children and others who cannot drive are disenfranchised by any environment that is motorist -predominated or ill -served by transit. It is unfortunate to note that in many CSD projects, even able bodied adults drive to areas where they feel it safe to walk. The net effect of a motorist -dependent environment is hobbling to both drivers and non -drivers. TND design allows the possibility of non -motorist travel and the replacement of some vehicular trips with non - vehicular trips. Good neighborhood design can produce less automobile travel. Studies in California comparing new "traditional" neighborhoods with direct street connections to conventional suburban subdivisions with curvilinear street patterns and cul-de-sacs, found that daily VMT could be as much as 50 percent lower, and CO emissions more than 40 percent lower than CSD design.17 13 http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_ whatyoucando.htm 14 See, for example, "South Village" project booklet prepared by the Retrovest Companies, sheets 3.6-8, 14, 16 &17. 15 City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, April 16, 2001, page 8. 16 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. section 103. 17 Calthorpe Associates. "Transit -Oriented Development Impacts on Travel Behavior," In Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection. 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1992. Pace 6 The City has acknowledged the desires to "promote walking and bicycling... to minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation".18 TND design specifically promotes these goals through detailed design measures. Street Width-: Rights of Way and Travel Surface A TND street network provides more connectivity than a standard CSD dendritic layout. IN a CSD project the cul-de-sacs feed the local streets that feed the collectors, and then the arterials. By collecting and focusing traffic, the larger streets quickly become auto -dominant and both unfriendly and unsafe for pedestrians. Conventional CSD planning also predicts the need to widen roads as traffic increases over time. In addition, since most CSD streets are not constructed to invite and enhance pedestrian travel, residential buildings are typically set back from the street which practice in turn underscores the auto -dominant nature of that environment. In a TND neighborhood, the space between buildings on opposite sides of a street is planned as an "outdoor room" where the buildings enclose the space so as to enhance the streetscape. Many TND zoning ordinances preclude any building setback and require instead front lot "build -to" lines that place buildings at the street right of way, or along a fixed, short distance therefrom.19 With large buildings, larger streets may be enclosed to create this outdoor room effect; for residential buildings, as proposed here, it is important that the overall width of the area planned for streets is not too wide. The City's street design standards are good examples of typical suburban dendritic street standards. However, just as the ITE determined a few years ago, these standards are not appropriate for TND design as they do not allow pedestrian -scaled streetscape to be created in a residential neighborhood. TND streets in neighborhoods such as South Village, except connector streets, typically do not function as independent "lanes" of travel. Rather, TND streets usually, and s proposed here, act as spaces where buildings are at or near the edges (typically with a front porch), then a sidewalk/dooryard area then a street travel space where bicyclists and parked vehicles are typically found nearer the sides and moving motor vehicles are found near the center. To design for the continuous opportunities for completely freely -flowing vehicles (as is the case with 10 feet and wider travel lanes), creates situations where most of the time passenger cars - far and away the predominant vehicle- will travel at 18 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Ibid, Chapter VII, Transportation 19 See, for example, TND Zoning Ordinance, Dade County, Florida. N aP 7 speeds greater than are desirable for nearby pedestrians. AASHTO has recognized the functionality of narrower streets- even in CSD projects- noting that "[t]he level of user inconvenience occaisioned by the lack of two moving lanes is remarkably low in areas where single-family units prevail.,,20 AASHTO also notes that in many residential areas streets are typically twenty-six feet in width, with this dimension affording two seven -foot parking lanes and a center twelve -foot travel lane, where [o]pposing conflicting traffic will �ield and pause on the parking lane area until there is sufficient width to pass." ' Such streets are termed "yield streets." For South Village, the connector street is proposed to have a 26' wide travel surface with unstriped parking allowed on one side. Waivers If the City, through its Planning Commission, agrees that the goals of South Village as are somewhat enumerated above, are in keeping with its own goal to "strive to encourage well planned residential development" in this area, then TND streets standards must be allowed in a TND Neighborhood. Such a decision would be in keeping with the waiver provisions of the Subdivision Regulations due to the "special circumstances" presented with this TND proposal, that are "in the interest of public health (and) safety".22 The following are the specific street -related waivers: Collector Street: There is one street in South Village that could be termed a Collector. The following requests pertain to that street: • Right-of-way width 60', • To require a travel pavement width of 26'; • Designate this street in South Village as a "connector" street, • To waive setback criteria for lots on connectors; and • To require design and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour. Local Streets: Most of the Streets in South Village are local streets: • Right-of-way width 50', • To require a travel pavement width of 24'; • To waive setback criteria for lots on local streets; • To require minimum centerline offsets of 150' between local streets • To require two -legged tee intersections between local streets; • Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" streets, and • To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour. 20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Washington, DC, 2001, Page 396. 2'Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Ibid, page 396 22 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. Section 513.1 PnaP. R Lanes: South Village proposes some "lanes" that will afford one-way access to homes and sites facing small parks and greens. For these lanes, the following requests are made: • Right-of-way width 35', • To require a travel pavement width of 18'; • To waive setback criteria for lots on lanes; • Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" lanes, and • To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour. Rear Lanes: South Village proposes some "rear lanes" that will afford additional access behind some homes and sites. For these rear lanes, the following requests are made: • Minimum right-of-way width 20', • To require a minimum travel pavement width of 14"; • Designate these rear lanes in South Village as a "TND" rear lanes; • To require design and posted speeds of 15 miles per hour. As noted previously, the enabling Act seeks to protect "residential, agricultural and other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic."23 These requests would further that goal and the City's own goals to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land',24. These requests will also facilitate a more compact village -scaled community by allowing buildings to be located closer to each other, as well as preserving larger contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts, including a decrease the volume of stormwater. Finally, these requests will allow the creation of a new TND neighborhood in Vermont. In a summary sense, "modern" development is represented below by the upper part of the diagram, while TND development is schematically indicated below. 23 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a). 24 Zoning Regulations, Ibid, Section 26,15 Pa aP. 9 One can insert most any land use in the upper part of the diagram, e.g. homes, offices and shopping. Since there are seldom any real walking connections available, every possible trip involves the use of an automobile, and that in turn places a great demand on the "collector" road that then needs to distribute those auto trips. The upper part of the diagram also represents, in schematic form, most of what has happened in terms of development in the US since the Second World War. There are, however, a number of newer projects nationwide that are building new neighborhoods that emulate the more walkable neighborhoods of the past. In the lower part of the diagram, one can imagine many older Vermont communities, the Old Port portion of Portland, Portsmouth, New Hampshire or any number of other places where walking, biking and transit are all made more possible by the mix of uses, provision of sidewalks, and interconnected streets. South Village emulates not all, but many of the best attributes of historic neighborhoods. It also could be Vermont's best chance at a new and real model of a "historic settlement pattern of [a] compact village" as the Act states and was noted previsously. Models are important, because banks and developers generally do not want to take chances or to try something new, even where "new" is actually a repetition of an older form of development. Pa Cy(- 10 South Burlington Planning & Zoning To: Rick Chillman, TND From: Juli Beth Hoover, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning and Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: September 23, 2002 Meeting Summary Memo Date: Friday, September 27, 2002 cc: Chuck Hafter, Bruce Hoar, John Dinklage, Bill Szymanski, Dave Marshall, Doug Brent, David Scheuer, Ken Braverman Thank you for the memo summarizing our meeting on September 19th. We look forward to meeting again on October 3rd at 2:00 PM. In preparation for that meeting, we would like to clarify a couple of points from your summary memo. 1. Public ownership of streets. We would like to clarify our understanding (and policy) that the streets identified within the project as "public" would be publicly OWNED, not just publicly maintained. 2. Pavement widths. On page 2, you state correctly that Retrovest is proposing pavement widths between 26 and 28 feet. We would reiterate that the City's standard is 30 feet and no decisions on this have been made yet. 3. Nitpicking. Please bear in mind that you'll be working with the Development Review Board, not Design. Please feel free to call in advance of the meeting if you have questions or clarifications for us. 575 Dorset Street Sou.tl7 Eurlington, VT 05405 (80T) 8r6-410614101 far planningC),burl corm ,.� � fir e s t- ME7M O South Burlington Planning & Zoning To: Rick Chillman, TND From: Juli Beth Hoover, AICP_--.,. Director of Planning & Zoning and Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: September 23, 2002 Meeting Summary Memo Date: Friday, September 27, 2002 cc: Chuck Hafter, Bruce Hoar, John Dinklage, Bill Szymanski, Dave Marshall, Doug Brent, David Scheuer, Ken Braverman Thank you for the memo summarizing our meeting on September 19'h. We look forward to meeting again on October Yd at 2:00 PM. In preparation for that meeting, we would like to clarify a couple of points from your summary memo. 1. Public ownership of streets. We would like to clarify our understanding (and policy) that the streets identified within the project as "public" would be publicly OWNED, not just publicly maintained. 2. Pavement widths. On page 2, you state correctly that Retrovest is proposing pavement widths between 26 and 28 feet. We would reiterate that the City's standard is 30 feet and no decisions on this have been made yet. 3. Nitpicking. Please bear in mind that you'll be working with the Development Review Board, not Design. Please feel free to call in advance of the meeting if you have questions or clarifications for us. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106/4101 fa;, planningC sburl con; South Burlington S tireet Department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD. August 6, 2002 To: Development Review Board From: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director Re: Sketch Plan Review of South Village I have reviewed the plans and the request for waivers in regards to streets. First of all I will review our requirements for right —of- way widths. The city requirements for ROW are as follows: Collector 80' Local 60' The right -of -way widths have been developed over the years to fit the needs of the city. Some of the needs include: • Road widths for moving traffic through and around the city. • Room for utilities both public and private. • Green belts for planting • Room for sidewalks • Room for bike paths • Room for bike lanes • Room for on street parking • Room for emergency vehicle access • Room for snow plowing • Room for snow storage The ROW is very critical to maintain because it is very expensive to acquire in the future if needed. Also there are state requirements for a minimum ROW on roads that receive state aid funding. The next big waiver that is being requested is the change to pavement widths. Once again I will review the existing standards: Collector 32' Local 30' The real question here is what width of pavement is the most practical for Public Works from a )aintenance standpoint and for all the citizens of the city. There is and east to west connection 'ough the proposed development. This route will be used by the traveling public and may end )eing classified as a Class 2 Town Highway. Roads that could or will be connectors should Lain pavement widths of 30' minimum. This allows for on street parking with 8' wide parking in one side of the street and two through lanes of 11'. The width of these lanes allows room for vehicles to travel even when there are other things happening on the traveled way. These things could include broken down cars, room for maintenance on the road either above or below the road surface. This width also allows for storage when we have a significant snowstorm. The storage issue is also important to emergency equipment during our winter months. There is also the issue of storm water if we have to remove snow because of space limitations. The Street Department has not trucked snow of any significant amount in over 13 years. Even when snow removal has taken place it is only on the major roads throughout the city, not in neighborhoods. The cost of removing snow in a neighborhood would be prohibitive and very inconvenient for the property owners since removal would take place at night. The lowest speed limit that can be legally enforced by and posted in the city and Vermont is 25MPH. All roads should at least be designed to meet this minimum limit. I have also added copies of the road standards that they are asking for provided by them along with our standards and different set backs. This is only so that there is a visual perspective of our requirements and what the developer is asking for. After meeting with the developer and his design team I feel that a viable solution can be reached that will work for the city. I do believe that we can reach agreements on pavement widths and other issues that can bring this project to life. The biggest issue as I see it from a Public Works standpoint is acquiring the proper amount of right -of —way from the onset of the project. Not having the right amount of ROW would be very expensive, if not impossible to acquire, down the road when it is needed. b cy') u V) I IV) Lij d V) -U L v "U C D v) u) _E J v) �U -iJ V -L U _o U) z 1 a T 1 w 1 Pvr` MIT NC7k Sc'sAGK=RB,g0K lScT3AGi: e .. SOIIJ°--F7mr1.-1C PUeUr, RO.K Collector Street - South Tillage Standards PU5LjC 4.CA. Collector Street - Cite Standards Scale: Y 9 • L J 1 I ti 13 0 u Cf f -� SJth Burlington Fh ,; epartment 575 Dorset Street August 1, 2002 South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief Ms. Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village Project Spear Street Dear Juli: I have reviewed the sketch plans for the proposed construction of the South Village "Traditional Neighborhood Design" planned residential development on Spear Street. I have also made a site visit to try to envision the siting of this project. A project of this type and magnitude poses many fire protection challenges. Unfortunately many of the design features of a project such as this greatly contrast with modern firefighting techniques. In the early stages of this project it will be difficult to outline all of the necessary requirements for the fire department. Listed below are some generalized fire protection requirements. As usual all construction must be in compliance with the requirements of Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division codes and standards. Due to travel distances from both South Burlington Fire Department Stations all multi -unit buildings will need to be provided with automatic sprinklers. Fire Department Sprinkler Connection locations are to be specified by SBFD. Installation of the necessary fire alarms required for an occupancies such as these. Number and location of fire hydrants will need to be determined by the South Burlington Water Department. Actual final spotting of said hydrants is to be done jointly with SBFD. Page - 2 Some problems which I have identified which are unique to this project due to it's design type are listed below. The narrow street dimensions and sharp corners are not conducive to operation and set-up of the equipment necessary for fire response and suppression. The physical size of current day fire apparatus is difficult to maneuver in neighborhoods such as the type that are being proposed. For example our ladder truck takes a minimum of 18 feet to set up. Fast deployment of hoselines, portable ladders and other equipment becomes extremely manpower intensive due to trees, fences and floral outcroppings. The close proximity of structures to each other can pose fire exposure problems in large fire situations. In closing let me say that none of these problems are insurmountable. I believe this is a great project for the City of South Burlington and I support it. I think that I can easily work with the developers to agree on reasonable alternative solutions to the potential fire protection problems. Sincerely, Q4,S ,- W.,.) Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September io, zooz Ken Braverman Retrovest 70 S. Winooski Avenue Burlington, Vermont 0540I Re: 1840 Spear Street Dear Mr. Braverman: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the August 6, zooz Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS FOR 8/6/2002 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 1) THE RETOROVEST COMPANIES —SPEAR STREET a. GRANTING OF WAIVERS ESPECIALLY AS THEY APPLY TO STREETS WOULD BE A SERIOUS SETBACK FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES. STREET PAVEDMENT WIDTH AND R.O.W. WIDTH SHOULD REMAIN AS IS. DEVELOPERS IN THE PAST FOR LARGE AND SMALL DEVELOPMENTS HAVE COMPLIED AND THIS DEVELOPER SHOULD ALSO. THE CITY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FINDS ITSELF IN NEED OF EXTRA R.O.W. AND IF NOT ACQUIRED DURING DEVELOPMENT IS DIFFICLUT TO ACQUIRE AFTER TO RECEIVE STATE HIGHWAY AID MINIMUM R.O.W. WIDTHS ARE REQUIRED. b. THE 32' AND 30' PAVED WIDTH OF CURBED STREETS SHOULD REMAIN. IT ALLOWS FOR PARKING UP BOTH SIDES AND ALLOWS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET THROUGH. c. WINTER SNOW PLOWING IS VERY IMPORTANT. STREET WIDTHS SHOULD BE ADEQUATE FOR SNOW STORAGE OTHERWISE THE SNOW HAS TO BE REMOVED. IN THE EVENT OF A 18-24 INCH SNOW STORM THE PROPOSED STREET WIDTH WOULD BE INADEQUATE. d. THE STREETS THAT WILL BE CITY MAINTAINED HAVE TO HAVE CLEAR TITLE TO THEM. THE CITY CANNOT GIVE G.M.P. AN EASEMENT. EASEMENTS HAVE TO COME FROM THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS A STATE REQUIREMENT FOR STATE AID. 2) OFFICE BUILDING LOT #4 MEADOWLAND BUSINESS PARK—HINESBURG ROAD a. A LOT OF WORK REMAINS ON THE MAIN ROAD TO THIS LOT. THIS ROAD MUST HAVE THE BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE BEFORE THEY PROPOSED BUILDINGS IS OCCUPIED. b. SITE PLAN IS WELL DONE AND IS ACCEPTABLE. j MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlingt o' ment Review Board FROM: Ray Belair,a d ' trative Officer RE: August 6, 2002 agenda items DATE: August 2, 2002 1) OTHER BUSINESS A. SUBDIVISION EXTENSION WILLIAM WESSEL VAN SICKLEN ROAD This project consists of a request for an extension of a subdivision approval from a Planning Commission meeting on 10/13/1998 (minutes enclosed). The applicant is requesting an extension of the 1998 approval to address a delay in receiving an Act 250 permit (letter enclosed). Staff is expecting a legal opinion on this matter from the City Attorney in time for the meeting. The project consisted of subdividing a 48.79 acre parcel (42.39 acres in South Burlington) into four (4) lots of 5.49 acres, 5.10 acres, 12.73 acres and 25.47 ( 19.07 acres in South Burlington), Van Sicklen Road. Findings of Fact from the 1998 final plat approval are enclosed for your review. 3) SKETCH PLAN, RETROVEST ASSOCIATES INC. 1840 SPEAR STREET This project consists of a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi -family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm. The property located at 1840 Spear Street lies within the SEQ Zoning District, Spear Street - Allen Road View Protection Overlay District, and C O/wetland buffer District. The property is bounded on the north and east by single family residences, on the west by Spear Street, and on the south by the Town of Shelburne and a single family residence. Access: Proposed access is via three access points onto the parcel, two off Spear Street and one off Midland Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to reserve a r.o.w. to the property to the north for a future road connection if necessary. The applicant is requesting waivers for minimum no.w., pavement widths, radius curves, distance between centerline offsets, vertical stopping distances, and other standards of South Burlington street requirements (see enclosed waiver list). Densi : The parcel is 242 acres of undeveloped land in South Burlington with one existing structure. A portion of the parcel is within the Town of Shelburne, which is not porposed to be developed. The applicant is proposing 310 dwelling units. The density allowed on the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO June 18, 2002 MEETING property is 290 dwelling units, (242 acres x 12 units =290 units). The preliminary plat application should reduce the number of units to 290. The designated developable area as shown on the SEQ Zoning Map is 90.5 acres. This is enough acreage to support the allowable density (4 units x 90.5 developable acres = 362 units). Waivers: Staff suggests the Board review the enclosed list of waivers prior to the meeting. Under Section 6.607 of the zoning regulations the Board has the ability to modify area and dimensional requirements found in Article XXV of the zoning regulations. The applicant is requesting a number of waivers from Article )OW Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. These consist of minimum lot size, front yard and rear setbacks, and frontage requirements. Staff has no problem with these waivers. The applicant is also requesting waivers from the South Burlington Street Design Standards in the subdivision regulations. These waivers concern minimum pavement widths, r.o.w. widths, minimum radius curves, tangent lengths between curves, distance between centerline offsets, minimum vertical sight distances, and minimum horizontal sight distances. The applicant has provided a study/report addressing "Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines", a recommended practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers to assist in the justification of their waiver requests from the street design standards. The Director of Public Works, Bruce Hoar, will be present at the meeting to provide his opinion regarding these waivers. The applicant should be prepared to justify to the Board all the waivers they are requesting. The applicant was made aware the Board does not have the ability to waive a r.o.w. of less then 20' as found in section 26.20 "Approval of Lots with No Road Frontage" and 26.202 (b) of the zoning regulations -number of lots serviced by a private drive shall be no more than three. Lot Size/Frontage: The applicant is requesting waivers from the minimum lot size, frontage on local streets, and frontage on collector street requirements for single family, duplexes, and multi -family dwellings. The waivers are as follows: Frontage on local Frontage on collector Lot Size street street Single Family 12,000 to 3,600 sq. ft. 85' to 40' 100' to 60' Duplex/Mulit- famil * 12 000 to 3,600 s . ft 85' to 60' 100' to 60' * per unit Height: The property is located in the Spear Street -Allen Road View Protection Overlay District. The applicant indicated the heights of the buildings would conform to the view protection limitations and has provided a plan showing an inventory of height limits for the parcel. 2 DEVELOPMENT REVI[EW BOARD MEMO .Tune 18, 2002 MEETING Lot Coverage/Setbacks: The applicant is requesting waivers from SEQ setback requirements. They are requesting for a reduction of the front yard setbacks for single family and multi -family dwellings as follows: Front yard setback Rear yard setback Single Family/Duplex 20' to 10' 30' to 10' or 5' for rear lanes Mulit-family20' to 10' 30' to 5' The applicant is requesting the Board to modify the requirement under section 25.10 of the zoning regulations requiring a minimum front yard setback for a new arterial and collector street of 50'. The applicant is requesting a minimum front yard setback of 10'. The proposed building coverage for the PRD is 5.5% (maximum allowed is 20%). Proposed overall coverage is 13.9% (maximum allowed is 40%). The applicant is proposing maximum building and overall coverage numbers for both the single family lots and multi -family lots as indicated on the enclosed waiver request list. Traffic: A traffic report supporting the requested waivers is included for your review. A traffic impact study should be submitted with the preliminary plat application. C.O. District/ wetland buffer: The applicant has provided locations of all delineated wetlands on the site with their 50' CO District/ wetland buffer on Sheet C3A (enclosed). A report addressing the wetland encroachment by Wm. Countryman Consultants into the wetlands is enclosed. Portions of lots are located within the CO District/wetland buffer. Staff recommends the lot lines be adjusted to not include these areas. The applicant has stated much of the encroachment is due to the development of a Comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). The applicant should be prepared to discuss this concept with the Board. Restricted Areas: The applicant is proposing development within designated "restricted" areas as shown on Sheet C-3C (enclosed). The applicant should be prepared to justify development within the restricted areas under section 6.606 (a)-(d). Agricultural Activities: The applicant is proposing a working 35 acre farm in the northwestern portion of the site. The buildings located within the restricted area along Spear Street are for agricultural use, which is an allowed in use in Section 6.501 of the zoning regulations. For preliminary plat the applicant should provide detailed explanation of the farm and the activities proposed for this portion of the project. South Burlington Natural Resources Committee: The SBNRC will review the application at their August 13, 2002 meeting, and will provide recommendations to the Board at the preliminary plat hearing. 3 DEYELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO June 18, 2002 MEETING South Burlington Water Department: Please Review the memo dated July 16, 2002 from the SBWD (enclosed). South Burlington Fire Department: The applicant is working with the SBFD. South Burlington City Engineer: Comments concerning the requested waivers are enclosed for your review. South Burlington Recreation Path Committee: Please review comments provided by the SBRPC (enclosed). South Burlington School District: The applicant should submit correspondence from the South Burlington School District evaluating the potential impact this project will have on the school system with a preliminary plat application. 41 CHASE PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, PRILIMINARY PLAT, BOWDOIN STREET This project consists of constructing a 20,300 square foot general office building on 3.13 acres. The sketch plan was reviewed at the June 18, 2002 DRB meeting (minutes enclosed). This project located on Bowdoin Street lies within the Industrial Open Space District, Hinesburg Road- North/ View Protection Overlay District, and Conservation Open Space District. The property is bounded on the north and east by undeveloped land, on the south by a proposed public street, and on the west by a private road. Access/Circulation: Access to the subdivision is provide by a proposed public street known as Swift Street Extension. Bowdoin Street is approved as a private street which connects with Swift Street Extension. Access into Lot #4 is provided via a single 24 foot wide curb cut off Bowdoin Street. Circulation on site is adequate. Lot Coverage/Setbacks: The proposed building coverage is 14.91/% (maximum allowed is 30%). The proposed overall coverage is 49.1%(maximum allowed is 50%). The front yard coverage along Swift Street Extension is 3.1% (maximum allowed is 30%). Front yard coverage on Bowdoin Street is proposed at 10.4 % (maximum allowed is 30%). All setbacks requirements are met. Hei ht: The property is located within the Hinesburg Road- North/ View Protection Overlay District. The applicant proposes the building not to exceed the elevation of 370 feet above mean sea level. The building cannot exceed an elevation of 412 feet above mean sea level. 4 The Retrovest Companies B U I I D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S MEMO TO: Stephanie Smith FROM: Ken Braverman DATE: 8/ 1 /02 RE: South Village Sketch Submittal Per our discussion this morning, I have enclosed a copy of the wetland delineation narrative prepared by Art Gilman. Also attached is a Memorandum in Support of Request for Waivers, written by Rick Chellman, P.E. I have also included the text "Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods". We would like to include these documents as part of our sketch submittal. We hope that these documents provide the Development Review Board and City staff with useful background and supportive information on neighborhood friendly street design. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Cc: Dave Marshall, CEA 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com William A Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning 868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663 Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422 wdeenv@logether.net 8 August 2001 Ken Braverman Retrovest 70 S. Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 Dear Mr. Braverman, This letter recaps the wetlands delineations that Errol Briggs and I have performed on the Calkins Farm property on Spear Street, South Burlington. These were done on 1 and 3 August. The weather was warm and dry. Very dry conditions have developed over the past several weeks, resulting in non -saturated conditions through most of the wetland; nevertheless we are confident that our delineations are accurate. Because some of the wetlands on the site are shown on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the area, the delineations were made according to the 3-parameter methodology in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, as specified in the Vermont Wetland Rules for mapped wetlands. This methodology is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It would seem unlikely to us that the delineations would change significantly if done strictly under the 1987 Corps Manual, especially given that agriculture has been effectively abandoned in the area and the fields are now becoming well grown up to shrubs. Several data transects were taken to document the delineation (copies to follow). From west to east, the site is characterized by low rolling hills, then a broad shallow valley, then gently rising terrain to the east with large outcropping knolls, a second smaller valley, and more rising terrain. At the eastern edge, the land falls abruptly to a large forested swamp. There are several small wetland areas on the high but level land along Spear Street north of the old farmhouse, but most of the high ground and the slopes are upland. There is a broad band of wetland that bisects the property along the valley floors. These are drained by a seasonal stream that flows north to south across the property. One source of this stream is a wetland in the housing development on the southeast corner of the property. From there, the stream flows north onto the property (in the second valley), turns westerly and descends a few feet to the main valley floor, then turns south becoming the main channel. The small dug pond that is shown on the NWI map is essentially separate from the stream. Soils According to the 1974 Chittenden County Soil Survey, the wetlands have developed mostly on Covington clay (a poorly drained soil) and Livingston clay (a very poorly drained soil). The large wetland along the eastern boundary of the property has muck and peat organic soils. The uplands are characterized primarily by Vergennes clay (a moderately well drained soil), with some areas of Georgia stony loam (moderately well drained), Hinesburg fine sandy loam (well drained) and Farmington extremely rocky loam (well drained). This last occurs on the outcropping knolls. In general we found that the wetland boundaries and the mapping of the soils are in agreement although some areas of Covington soil appear to be slightly more well drained, possibly due to ditching in the past. The band of wetland in the second valley is somewhat narrower than the band of this soil as mapped. Plants. Due to the long history of agricultural use, the plant communities contain a number of species common to fields and pastures throughout Vermont. This is most evident on the upland portions of the fields, which are dominated by such plants as bedstraw (Galiunr mollugo) and vetch (Vicia cracca). The nonforested wetlands, however, are mostly dominated by sedges, especially lake sedge (Carex lacustb-is) and hairy -fruited sedge (C. lanuginosa). The forested areas of wetland are dominated by green ash (Froxinus pennsylvanica) and racemed dogwood (Cornus racenlosa). It should be noted, however, that even though this species of dogwood is ranked as a "facultative wetland species" it is not a good wetland indicator on this site because it occurs abundantly on uplands as well. Apparently when tillage and pasturage were abandoned, conditions were right for this species to invade wherever the soil was sufficiently damp, even if not wetland. Also noteworthy is the fact that we observed few non-native wetland plants; invasive species such as purple loosestrife and common reed (Phragmites australis) are mostly lacking. Hydrology. The wetlands are characterized primarily by a high water table and impeded drainage rather than by surface waters. The poor permeability of the Covington and Livingston clay soils results in saturated conditions, especially where topographic relief is low. Where relief is more pronounced, as on the Vergennes clay soils on the knolls along the western side of the property, runoff is sufficient to drain the soil so that saturated conditions do not occur. The ground surface is extremely lumpy in the wetlands (and somewhat lumpy even on uplands), probably due to pasturage, with the lumps being exaggerated by frost heaving and plant tussock development in the wetlands. Because the small pond near the center of the site and the large wetland along the eastern boundary are shown on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Map for the area, those and all wetlands that are contiguous with them are Class Two wetlands under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This essentially means that all the wetlands along the valley floor are Class Two Wetlands. Such wetlands have a 50' statutory buffer zone as well. If any development is proposed in those wetlands or their buffer zones, the project will require a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. A CUD can only be granted if it is demonstrated that there will be no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the wetland. Isolated wetlands would be considered Class Three wetlands, which are basically outside the jurisdiction of the Vermont Wetland Rules, except that impacts to them `considered under water quality criteria of Act 250 and the Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program. The Corps has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States, including wetlands. In Vermont many activities of up to one acre of impact can be allowed under the Vermont General Permit #58. For this permit, review is undertaken by the Corps in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. If no concerns are raised, and the Corps is satisfied that steps have been taken to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts, then a permit may be granted. If impacts of over one acre are contemplated, then an Corps Individual Permit would be required. Such a permit is usually difficult, costly, and time-consuming to obtain, as it requires a demonstration of (public) need and an extensive alternative sites analysis. I understand that there will be a site visit with April Moulaert of the Vermont Wetlands Office on 15 August. At that time we can review the wetlands delineations and go over any concerns that she may have with the proposed project. It would also be well to schedule a site visit with Marty Abair or Mike Adams of the Corps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur V. Gilman avg/s cc: Dave Marshall Wetlands on the Calkins Farm: Series Flag #'s Notes A 1-17 A small isolated wetland just behind the residence on Spear Street; note that this also connects to Y B 1-5 A small isolated wetland on a knoll south of the residence C 1-146 Marks the west side of the main central wetland D 1-189 Marks most of the east side of the main wetland (see F) E 1-6 A small isolated wetland on the valley floor, near D F 1-31 Marks the remainder of the east side of the main wetland G 1-4 A small isolated wetland on the east side of the main wetland, near F H 1-29 Together with I, marks out an island within the main wetland I 1-40 See H J 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street K 1-4 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street L 1-21 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street M 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street; this outlets at a culvert under Spear Street N 1-9 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street O 1-5 A small isolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; may fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" P 1-5 A -small isolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; may fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" Q 1-6 Isolated wetland on slope R 1-5 Isolated wetland area on slope S 1-9 Isolated wetland area on slope T 1-60 Defines the western boundary of the large forested wetland that Forms much of the s eastern boundary of the property U V 1-8 1-7 A small isolated wetland area along the south boundary, near D Small wetland along surficial drainage course, in shrubby field, drains to D w 1-11 Similar to V and in same drainageway, connects to D X 1-15 Isolated wetland at toe of slope, near C Y 1-29 Wetland along old dug ditch, near height of land behind residence, connects to A Z 1-5 Isolated wetland near old spring house behind residence AA 1-10 Depressional, isolated wetland under powerlines BB 1-17 With CC, marks wetland on level terrain, valley floor, near but isolated from C CC 1-9 See BB DO 1-11 Isolated wetland along old drainage course on slope, drains to C ClVl! ENGINEERING A�0,�,OCI��t��, 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 July 30, 2002 Ms. Stephanie Smith, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD - SD-02-44 The Retrovest Companies Sketch Plan Preliminary Comments Dear Ms. Smith: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com Thank you for your timely review comments concerning the South Village Sketch Plan Application pending before the Development Review Board. To assist you in the development of your final staff notes, we have developed the following responses to the issues that you have raised. The applicant should overlay the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map to show zoning district boundary lines and determine developable and restricted areas. Staff needs to know the acreage of the developable area in order to determine the maximum density. The Board will look at Section 6.606 when considering development within the designated restricted areas as shown on the SEQ map. Sheet C-3C has been developed which overlays the restricted areas on top of the proposed site plan. The developable area calculated from the digital version of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map is 90.5 acres. Concerning the proposed development within the previously identified restricted areas, we believe the design goals that have been implemented into this plan reflect the requirements set forth in Section 6.606 of the Zoning Regulations. 2. The Board does not have the ability to waive Sections 26.201 or 26.202 of the zoning regulations. We now recognize this limitation and will revise the future plans to reflect this limitation. The Board will review the proposed development as a whole; therefore, the waivers addressing coverage for single family lots are not necessary. Staff recommends the applicant set coverage maximums on individual lots to allow for the addition of decks and patios, and not to trigger final plat amendment review. Your recommendation concerning providing flexibility within the proposed lot coverage limitations to cover future modifications to the buildings is prudent. This will be adopted in the more formal submittal as part of the Preliminary Plat Application. Ms. Stephanie Smith Page two July 30, 2002 4. Section 25.103 of the zoning regulations can be waived by the Board, and will be addressed along with the criteria found in Section 6.602 of the zoning regulations. The applicant should be prepared to speak to these criteria. We recognize this responsibility. 5. The sketch plan should show the location of proposed utilities (water and sewer). A new plan identified as Sheet C-31) has been developed to show the conceptual means of providing water distribution and wastewater collection. 6. The sketch plan should show all delineated wetlands and their 50 foot buffers, and a letter with information on when the wetland delineation was conducted and by whom. We have enclosed a copy of the wetland report prepared by Wm. Countryman Consultants. Sheet C-3 has been revised to include the 50' buffer/C.O. District around the Class 3 wetlands. This was already depicted on the Class 2 wetlands on the property. 7. Portions of lots are contained within the C.O. District/wetland buffer; staff recommends the applicant adjust the lot boundaries so as to not encroach into the C.O. District. Many of the encroachments into the C.O. District are in support of the development of a comprehensive Stormwater Treatment Train (STT). We believe that this is consistent with the uses allowed within the C.O. District. Because of the importance of this stormwater management component to the overall design goals of the community as well as the permitting requirements of the project, there will be limited potential for traditional residential activities to adversely affect these areas. These areas will be actively managed and protected by easements precluding the need to further protect them through the modification of the property lines. 8. What is the proposed use of the community buildings found in the restricted area? The applicant should be aware certain uses are allowed within the SEQ restricted areas under Section 6.501 of the zoning regulations. These buildings are proposed in support of the agricultural activities proposed in the general vicinity consistent with the allowable uses outlined in Section 6.501. 9. The applicant should be aware the maximum density for this development is 290 (242 acres x 1.2 = 290). Consistent with the language in the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the original request for 310 units was to reflect the potential inclusion of a density bonus as part of the project. The use of a density bonus has not yet been included in the current Zoning Regulations. We are contemplating a proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations which, if adopted, would allow the DRB to issue a density bonus under certain circumstances. Without this amendment, the applicant recognizes that the maximum density is limited to 1.2 units per acre or 4 units per acre of developable area. Ms. Stephanie Smith Page three July 30, 2002 A. To further assist the DRB in the review of the proposed waivers, we have augmented the original request to include a narrative on why each waiver is necessary to develop a project of this type. B. Some concerns have been raised relative to the ability to "fit" the necessary utilities within the proposed reduced width right-of-ways. We have edited the typical cross sections on Sheet C-5 to include the layout of the utilities within each type of street section. This completes our submittal of the additional information that you have requested. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Enclosures 5 Full Size and 8 Reduced Size Plans of the following sheets: C-3A Proposed Site Plan with Revised C.O. District Information C-3C Restricted Area Overlay Mapping C-313 Water & Sewer Mapping C-5 Revised Street Sections with Utility Layout Revised Waiver Request Wetland Report (under separate cover) cc: K. Braverman (Plans under separate cover) \\Dave\c\ l Let\01243\SmithCitylssues.Responses.wpd South Village Sketch Plan Submittal June 14, 2002 Request for Waivers The following waivers are requested in support of the proposed plan for South Village, a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) with residentially scaled streets and traditional village layout. Planned Residential Developments Section Title Description & Reason 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations : A. Minimum right-of-way width for collector from 80' to 60' B. Minimum right-of-way width for Local street from 80' to (50' or 35') C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (26' or 20') D. Minimum pavement width for Local street from 30' to (18' to 24'). E. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 100' F. Minimum radius of curves for Local street from 300' to 75' G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' I. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150' J. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). 26.201 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement of an easement or right-of-way of at least 20' to 18' (for rear lane access). 26.202 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement limiting the number of lots being served by a private right-of-way to three after which a public street shall be required. Request is to allow up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane) South Village Request for waivers Page two June 14, 2002 Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The request is to waive the following requirements: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,600 SF. B. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40' C. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' D. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%. E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61%. F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 101. G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF unit to 3,600 SF. I. per Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60' J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%. L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%. M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 101. N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 10' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SOUTH VILLAGE 6/14/02 11) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of modification of municipal facilities Waste Disposal: The proposed project will be served by a direct tie to the existing gravity collection system associated with the Larkin project on Allen Road. A conceptual plan for collecting and transporting the wastewater from the proposed development areas of this property to the City of South Burlington's sewer collection system. The proposed system internal to the property would follow the contour of the land terminating at a sewage pump station located at the southwest corner of the property. From this point the wastewater would be pumped via a 6" PVC force main into the gravity sewer collection system located on Allen Road. This system flows by gravity to the recently upgraded Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Water Supply: CEA has contacted Mr. Jay Nadeau, Water System Superintendent for the City of South Burlington, to address the design fire flow requirements for this project and the existing system capabilities. Mr. Nadeau indicated that the existing system has the ability to provide reliable potable and fire flows for the proposed project. The Dorset Farms project is fed via an existing 12" ductile iron water main that extends southerly approximately 1.5 miles from the existing water tank on Dorset Street. This 12" main leaves Dorset Street and runs westerly along the main access into Dorset Farms. Mr. Nadeau requested that this water main be connected to the water main on Spear Street near the Allen Road intersection with a 12" diameter line to complete the Southeast Quadrant loop. Mr. Nadeau also reiterated the City's position relative to providing looping of the proposed hamlet areas in support of the City's efforts to improve the reliability of the fire flow and potable water delivery system. Design - The proposed project if built out to 310 (three -bedroom) units, would require an estimated design flow of 125,000 gallons per day. Based upon the service elevation of 480 at the water tank on Dorset Street, this site could expect a static pressure to the residential buildings ranging from 40 to 50 psi. Utilizing the conceptual plans developed to date, the preliminary distribution system includes the installation of 19,700 feet of new water main which would generally would follow the new roadway system. This layout assumes an average hydrant spacing of 300 feet in the residential areas and 500' in the cross country areas with two high spots requiring an air relief structure and valving at the 500' intervals. Littleton, & Carolyn Long � Littleton LongLucien &Jane Demers I 1720 Spear St. �. 1720 Spear St. � P.O. Box 359 S. Burlington, VT 05403 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Jct., , VT 05452 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset St. 14 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear St. 014 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald Cummings 01.1 1811 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davidson 1827 Spear St. `a S. Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Shatzer 217 North Kentucky�� Lakeland, FL 33801 tarry Stone '.9 Rangely Rd. hestnut Falls, MA 02160 farlan & Joan Sylvester 003 Spear St. Q helburne, VT 05482 v ►'illiam Stanley .10 751 Spear St: )uth Burlington, VT 05403 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Janet Farina 1807 Spear St. AS S. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Ayse Floyd 420 1813 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Lawrence Veladota 1865 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear St. 7 Shelburne, VT 05482 Mary Pappas .Z•:L 1809 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall Q 1815 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Binal '� 1845 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 14 William Reed 1967 Spear St. 05403 S. Burlington, James & Eleanor McNamara 1975 Spear St. 0 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 4012 Spear St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Shane & Holly Deridder �� 192 Catkin Dr. So. Burlington, VT 05403 13 VT 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear St. 10 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear St. q Shelburne, VT 05482 Suresh & Girijalakshmi� Swaminathan 197 Catkin Dr. So. Burlington, VT 05403 7athew & Beverly Broomhall James & Christina Robert Floral St. Stanley &Carolyn Pallutto So 35 Floral St. 3A 33 Floral St. P— Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mich-ael Bouvier 33 31 FIoral St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 to UVM &' So• Bur. z .PRO , ' CT SITE 310 117aulkins Property s, SH'ELBURNE- • . " gt Lake Ch y i TO SOUTH SHELBUME - xx '. t0 �W4 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SOUTH VILLAGE 6/14/02 11) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of modification of municipal facilities Waste Disposal: The proposed project will be served by a direct tie to the existing gravity collection system associated with the Larkin project on Allen Road. A conceptual plan for collecting and transporting the wastewater from the proposed development areas of this property to the City of South Burlington's sever collection system. The proposed system internal to the property would follow the contour of the land terminating at a sewage pump station located at the southwest corner of the property. From this point the wastewater would be pumped via a 6" PVC force main into the gravity sewer collection system located on Allen Road. This system flows by gravity to the recently upgraded Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Water Supply: CEA has contacted Mr. Jay Nadeau, Water System Superintendent for the City of South Burlington, to address the design fire flow requirements for this project and the existing system capabilities. Mr. Nadeau indicated that the existing system has the ability to provide reliable potable and fire flows for the proposed project. The Dorset Farms project is fed via an existing 12" ductile iron water main that extends southerly approximately 1.5 miles from the existing water tank on Dorset Street. This 12" main leaves Dorset Street and runs westerly along the main access into Dorset Farms. Mr. Nadeau requested that this water main be connected to the water main on Spear Street near the Allen Road intersection with a 12" diameter line to complete the Southeast Quadrant loop. Mr. Nadeau also reiterated the City's position relative to providing looping of the proposed hamlet areas in support of the City's efforts to improve the reliability of the fire flow and potable water delivery system. Design - The proposed project if built out to 310 (three -bedroom) units, would require an estimated design flow of 125,000 gallons per day. Based upon the service elevation of 480 at the water tank on Dorset Street, this site could expect a static pressure to the residential buildings ranging from 40 to 50 psi. Utilizing the conceptual plans developed to date, the preliminary distribution system includes the installation of 19,700 feet of new water main which would generally would follow the new roadway system. This layout assumes an average hydrant spacing of 300 feet in the residential areas and 500' in the cross country areas with two high spots requiring an air relief structure and valving at the 500' intervals. t E i ITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPAP ME'NT OF PIANNEqG s i ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLE'•TGTON, VEF.A40I ,'T 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number SD4 _ -a 4 FOR SUB DIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailii lu/ )?. eallems, -Po. Qox 82. Lvnclonc& ZA)(# 80.4-CA, -//GO address, phone and fax #) YT 05s5-/ vAzro oAri:� /1/2/97 56.8ur/. Aand Rec. Y. yi9, P, _. y5�-w55 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Shelburne tond.Rer. Ywo, 'k 106 -107 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing addh %O .5&rr" WNooSK/ Av . phone and fax #) R� rR0✓�ST.gSsoc/ATES Sn[C. ./1ZUNC670ty VT 05'y0/ -Phone- Poe SG 3 832 3 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST II',l THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) OPr/ON 7a PURCH-4S8- 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax R67RO✓S5T , 70 60•i/I//1Y0OSK1 4/,C . &/,eU1ve-7r n/, YT 05 .83RA✓FJZM.4h/ AT 3 &%L3-/337 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 1840 :5AEAR Sr, �j.�U,¢L�rtlUTpn/. YT 05t/03 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 1640 -0/814/0, F 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) acres Of farm lid /Io /617gei117 use kV/U70eCu1o•e& sIr��/e amply ouse b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) Ti?ADiT/oNAL IV!clel4,WgHOOD DESK?h/ of , 310I1(ONt5 hLno d1no.5 e$). 0tf es a►d --10tvr717 WeS as t,Wl as C'orDinur��f uildi ALSO A ere r In . c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Proposed height of =ouilding (if applicable) U/aced b_c� Cif y Of Bud, -.) Nnmber, of residential units (if applicable_ new units and existing units to remain) 3/D f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing G 1 % Proposed 5. 5 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing < i % Proposed 3 9 % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing h J %o Proposed (see Nge t3oquestfar atuers h-"AdH e D 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) 1501 VE,4CO g O W exrsf1179 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) See attlaohed 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) See 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE -& be odelerml,-7cd. 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (1 I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is free. -002 15:49 8026261160 CALKINS PAGE 04 SI RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 863 1339; JUN- 0- 02 15:36; PAGE 4/5 I hereby certify that all the inflbm:ation requested as of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowlcd$c SI ATURB F C SIONA 11Y Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: 1 have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: ❑ Complete ❑ Incomplete Diremr of planning &Zoning or Designee I Date EXI-11BIT A SKETCH PLAN The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. o Name and address of owner of record and applicant. o Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. o Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. o Location map showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. o Boundaries and area of all contiguous land belonging to the owner of record. o Boundaries and area of the proposed subdivision. o Existing and proposed layout of property lines. o Type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land (easements, covenants, etc.). o Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets or private ways. o Existing zoning boundaries. o Existing watercourses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. o Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. o Number and location of parking spaces (see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations). o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. o A list of waivers desired (if any). o All applicable information required for a site plan application shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, planned unit development, or planned residential development (please see site plan application). A APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SOUTH VILLAGE 6/14/02 11) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of modification of municipal facilities Waste Disposal: The proposed project will be served by a direct tie to the existing gravity collection system associated with the Larkin project on Allen Road. A conceptual plan for collecting and transporting the wastewater from the proposed development areas of this property to the City of South Burlington's sewer collection system. The proposed system internal to the property would follow the contour of the land terminating at a sewage pump station located at the southwest corner of the property. From this point the wastewater would be pumped via a 6" PVC force main into the gravity sewer collection system located on Allen Road. This system flows by gravity to the recently upgraded Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Water Supply: CEA has contacted Mr. Jay Nadeau, Water System Superintendent for the City of South Burlington, to address the design fire flow requirements for this project and the existing system capabilities. Mr. Nadeau indicated that the existing system has the ability to provide reliable potable and fire flows for the proposed project. The Dorset Farms project is fed via an existing 12" ductile iron water main that extends southerly approximately 1.5 miles from the existing water tank on Dorset Street. This 12" main leaves Dorset Street and runs westerly along the main access into Dorset Farms. Mr. Nadeau requested that this water main be connected to the water main on Spear Street near the Allen Road intersection with a 12" diameter line to complete the Southeast Quadrant loop. Mr. Nadeau also reiterated the City's position relative to providing looping of the proposed hamlet areas in support of the City's efforts to improve the reliability of the fire flow and potable water delivery system. Design - The proposed project if built out to 310 (three -bedroom) units, would require an estimated design flow of 125,000 gallons per day. Based upon the service elevation of 480 at the water tank on Dorset Street, this site could expect a static pressure to the residential buildings ranging from 40 to 50 psi. Utilizing the conceptual plans developed to date, the preliminary distribution system includes the installation of 19,700 feet of new water main which would generally would follow the new roadway system. This layout assumes an average hydrant spacing of 300 feet in the residential areas and 500' in the cross country areas with two high spots requiring an air relief structure and valving at the 500' intervals. PUNS PREPARED BY: 1 � i LI- i 1 GRAPHIC SCALE r IN :M ) 1 innh - 200 rL A91a,ELT ZMM PROJECT PARCEL - 20 ACRM ZONM - SOUR EAST QUADRANT 1019MMIDANL R OU4W3fiWM stair (war. AMNEW LOT AREA- IRAWfr MK LOT ROWME RDM fr, R-b F7 UK LOr W/LAfE�fODFT AM A�fli1L 1.t LSYM MF M 'Orr . ,oFr R6M 30FT a7 IwW. IIYO AffnVZ f Of ALL 011111Mi11f0 00L IJUM lKWE LfsO-FALaY.� Lf1fa1 LOT ARM -JMW LR PM LMI) AWL LOT ROMMAD01Lfr -,aD rr AM LOT ABWiAaf�4 LKC R�IIW. 11 Fr mow rr .:rr RfM DJT w RUWT "M GETEMN ON All OEBMWMYM COUBCTOR ROWS COVE V40E REWIREMEWR& LM1310M MU DM OOWEVOf-A01L BMW MMDW 00Y!l11aE-<7% F"OPOf® SEED" cowl M -&M LM7Mi1 LOT 00106NaE-411% DOf1.1a Lor OOIBMfr- 0% PFKV4 ® LOr 001/9114 M- Ilia ooRev Lac AWCOM PALL R CALU VS AOL am ✓B U DOMYILF, Vr 01051 APALOW7.` Tiff RETROYEST COMPANLES 70 SOM WPI )OW AM9M SL/FKMGTCK VT 061 4WM 1M0 SPEAR SMET SOM SEfiv 1KiTcK yr O610R 209 10th �—. S-., " N.o,,A , runt.. 37= 7*1"h— 615 715 1110 F- 615 776 111 i Dam MJW DSM O� DSMAPPUCANT: The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONSULTANTS: PLA4FA9WA9CAr?W7' LOOAEY RICKS 1035 NIA WALLE, IN cm BK941L— CNL ENGAEEWMASSOCLATES 9R69UILLML; Vr 7A :nc SAWAU 1 TW ENO/NEEFUNG 0SSIPEE, AN LAhQtiWE ANd#7ECT L4ND-WORKS SW RICAMAYM PLAAIIBIA9 APPLIED ECOLOOMJIL SERFS BROAONtSAD, WI PROJECT TrrLE: SOUTH VILLAGE uth Burlington, Vcrmont T I. SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD �. (PROPOSED I SITE PLAN 11011 JUNE, ,= Baum 2W C3A SKETCH PLAN I rM im ,A,„, 144, pppp 01243 cu V a o >E 0 ch a W cu Cd W <coW c� � rs F�1 AQ fig cog a co R III` I� I ( l I I-rrT It l rllllllllllllllllllllllllll't�� 1� �lllllilllllllllllllilllllllllll / /c2ij�� �' �1;? j I of S O U T IEI V I L S O U T H B U R L I N G T O N, V E R M O N T T H E R E T R 0 V E S T C O M P A N I E S IL A G E No Text As Founders of South Village, we believe the time has come to rethink conventional suburban development: We envision this community as a model for responsible growth that respects his- toric settlement patterns. Vermont's landscape is traditionally comprised of forests, working farms and villages. Drawing from this pattern, South Village is envisioned as a series of residential neighborhoods clustered around a village center and set between working agricultural land and undisturbed natural areas. - The Retrovest Companies Sheet 1 j "Suburban residential subdivisions should be designed to take up less space, create pedestrian friendly environments, provide for open spaces, minimize traffic, connect the community, and diversify housing." - Community Rules: A New England Guide to Smart Growth Strategies Conservation Law Foundation & Vermont Forum on Sprawl, 2002 © 2002 The Retrovesi Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, la ndscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. South Village Community Goals The planning and development of South Village will be guided by a series of Community Goals that include: Environmental Stewardship Design Integration Creating a Sense of Community A Mix of Housing Types and Prices Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Providing On -Site Opportunities for Recreation and Lifelong Learning A Commitment to Quality. Environmental stewardship is the cornerstone of the South Village planning process. A detailed assessment and analysis of environmental condi- tions and resources has resulted in a community plan designed to conserve natural resources and support a healthy interaction between people and the environment. South Village will include an ecologically designed storm -water management system, protected open spaces, ecological restora- tion plans, community -supported agriculture, preserved view -sheds, and energy efficient building designs. Design integration recognizes the interdepen- dence of ecology, community design, architecture, and landscape design. This multidisciplinary ap- proach results in solutions that create multi -layered community benefits. The site plan, for example, integrates a series of ecologically designed swales that achieve multiple goals including, storm water management, enhanced wildlife habitat and the creation of neighborhood open spaces. (continue) SOZJTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r I i n g t o n V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v c s t C o m p a n i c s Sheet 2 ilc m The Prime Elements of Amenity in Vermont Towns • A Rural Setting • A Focal Point • Human Scale • Architectural Quality from Vermont Townscape by Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Peter Lavigne. © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyrightfor any portion ofthe architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. South Village Community Goals (continued) A sense of community is achieved through quality design. A network of neighborhood parks, common meeting places, and residen- tially scaled streets create a sense of connec- tion between neighbors and their community. The village center will include a Meeting House, Commons, and Skating Pond that will serve as a community focal point for South Village and its neighbors. A mix of housing types and prices will be provided within each neighborhood. By offer- ing a wide variety of residential uses, includ- ing affordable housing, South Village will be home to people of diverse incomes, ages, and backgrounds; creating a diverse and distinc- tive community. Sustainable agriculture is a vital and growing component of Vermont's land use and social fab- ric. The Intervale Foundation will restore the site's agricultural functions by creating a 35 acre sus- tainable working farm. The goal of this partner- ship is to re-establish the property's abandoned agricultural uses through community supported agriculture and the creation of a native plant nursery. On -site recreational, environmental, and educational opportunities will focus on promot- ing connections among neighbors. The community will include an extensive network of pedestrian, bike and quiet paths, a dedicated school site, and a 35 acre working farm. Residents will have oppor- tunities to participate in community supported agriculture and environmental stewardship pro- grams. A commitment to quality is the centerpiece of the Founder's Goals. Excellence in ecological planning, community design, and architecture is the foundation of our vision. The integration of these design disciplines, combined with a commitment to quality building materials, indigenous plant materials, and energy effi- ciency are the fundamental components of South Village's sustainable development goals. S OLJTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R c t r o v e s t C o m p a n i c s Sheet 3 views rrom within the site highlight a diversity of natural features such as wetlands and wooded areas which provide valuable habitat for wildlife. ' Jth ,,. Site � r' f The existing rural character along Spear Street will be preserved. M��y{ A � r �• -� ETA w AMON - moo_'• � � • ��• i ff 2-1 + , Al Norlh East C3 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion ofthis copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyrightforany portion ofthe architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the workdesigned by others. An existing farm house at Spear Street and Allen Road will serve as an administration building for the South Village Farm. � 1 Westward view toward the Adirondack Mountains Eastward view toward the Green Mountains Site Description Located in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, South Village will be situated on a 220-acre site with views of Lake Champlain, and the Adirondacks and Green Mountains. Positioned at the intersection of Spear Street and Allen Road the property is located within the city's Southeast Quadrant and is serviced by municipal utilities. This infill site is surrounded by existing residential uses and is located 3 miles from the University of Vermont and 4 miles to downtown Burlington. S OZJTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i c s Sheet 4 Site Conditions Legend ❑ 0'to 15' Building Height 15' to 25' Building Height ❑ 25' to 35' Building Height F135' Building Height ❑ Wetlands ■ Restricted Area 1 Archeological Site Site Conditions & Resources The South Village design team has conducted a comprehensive assessment of the site's conditions and resources. This analysis took into account the natural and historic features of the site as well as its contextual relationship to the surrounding commu- nity. This area, which was once an integral part of Chittenden County's agricultural economy, is today characterized by suburban development. The key natural features of the site include: • Lake and Mountain Views • Wetlands • Woodlands • Abandoned Agricultural Fields In addition to the above, the University of Vermont has identified a small Native American archeological site in the southern portion of the property. This site will be left undisturbed by South Village and will be used for future educational and interpretive programs. As outlined in the City's zoning regulations, the Spear Street - Allen Road View Protection Zone limits building heights within areas of the South Village site, protecting views of Mount Mansfield and Camel's Hump. S OZ7TH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s ", 2002The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion ofthiscopyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed byothers. Sheet 5 0' 500' 1/4 mile it .. promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the open and special character of the Southeast Quadrant ... strive to encourage well planned residential development at densities and layouts that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas and scenic views. " - 2001 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 0 2002 The Retrovest Com panies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyrig ht pertai ni ng to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by othem. Village Master Plan & Neighborhood Design The Founders of South Village recognize the distinc- tive qualities and characteristics of Vermont's historic villages and townscapes. Using planning and design concepts often referred to as Traditional Neighbor- hood Design (TND), the community's master plan will create a walkable community with safer streets, neighborhood parks and common meeting places. The South Village Master Plan will respect and advance the following residential devel- opment objectives set forth for the Southeast Quadrant as outlined in the City of South Burlinton's Municipal Plan: • Encouraging prime farmland to remain open by clustering development. • Preserving natural features such as wetlands, floodplains, and dr+ainageways. • Locating development in a manner which pre- serves significant scenic views. • Promoting significant setbacks along no►ih-south arterials to maintain open feelings and promote preservation of "special character' • Protecting enough wooded area to maintain viable wildlife habitat and maintain connections between habitats for movement. SOUTH VILLAGE S o u t h Burling ton , V e r m o n t T h e R c t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s Sheet 6 Active use of squares, greens, commons, and parks is encouraged through thoughtful place- ment and design. Vermont architecture will be provided. an "0 dp "Wow sW r Narrow streets and lanes that are defined by Puildings, trees, and lighting create an attractive and more people friendly neighborhood with reduced environment impacts. I n 2002 The Ret—tt Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion ofthis copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion ofthe architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. i Village Master Plan & Neighborhood Design (continued) The design for South Village includes the follow- ing elements: • Respect for the site's natural and environ- mental features, preserving wherever pos- sible, natural topography, drainage, and vegetation. • Use of open spaces, including agricultural fields, wildlife corridors, and stormwater treatment greenbelts, to create well defined edges to each neighborhood. • A series of well connected streets, lanes, pedestrian paths, and bikeways designed to encourage pedestrian and bike use and discourage high speed traffic. • Narrow streets and lanes that are defined by buildings, trees, and lighting to create an attractive and more people friendly neigh- borhood with reduced environmental im- pacts. • Both formal and informal public spaces providing a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities as well as commu- nity focal points. • A diversity of housing types enabling citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within South Village. • A network of rear lanes, alleyways, and common driveways designed to create a traditional village streetscape that focuses on quality architecture. • Protection of easterly views of Mount Mansfield and Camel's Hump, Vermont's tallest peaks. S "U-rlJ VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v c s t C o m p a n i e s Sheet 7 �! I The Village Center offers diverse housing options and close proxim- ity to community buildings, the skating pond, and the village common. Field's Edge takes advantage of surrounding open spaces that provide views from nearly every house to the South Village farm, preserved wetlands, or the restored oak woodland on the northwest side. The Ridge lies between the preserved wetlands and the high point in a young growth forest, offering larger lots nestled in the woods and views of the Adirondacks to the west. 0 Nestled in the woods, The Grove will provide seclusion while having direct access to quiet trails and the municipal bikeway. Neighborhoods The South Village Master Plan is comprised of a series of linked neighborhoods. Each neighbor- hood will include a mix of housing types, pedes- trian friendly streets and a central common or open space that serves as a focal point. These neighborhoods will be linked by a series of pedes- trian pathways that will include unpaved quiet paths, bikeways, sidewalks, and farm roads (see Sheet 14 Pedestrian Connections). Similar to historic Vermont communities, South Village's neighborhoods will vary in character. Some areas will be recognizable by a degree of consistency in architectural and landscape design, others will be marked by natural focal points such as an oak grove, wetland or pastoral views. By offering choices of housing types within each neighborhood, South Village will be home to people of various ages and incomes. S OZJTH VILLAGE _..�""' South r..� --- -- T h R B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t -, t r o v e S t C o ill p a 11 i c s Cc, 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion ofthis copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright forany portion ofthe architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 8 The Village Center will include a Meeting House for community activities and gatherings, as well as a school, skating pond, a working farm, and a traditional Vermont village common. The Village Center will include a condominium building derived from the vernacular of Vermont's town centers. The Village Center Historically, Vermont villages grew around a central public space known as The Common. The commons were surrounded by a variety of homes, barns, and civic buildings which were loosely arranged, providing views to the farm- land. The South Village Center will be the commu- nity focal point. Community buildings will serve educational, social and recreational purposes for the Village. The Village Meeting House will include community spaces for meetings and special events and may include amenities such as a fitness center and recre- ation room. The Village Founders also plan to make a site within the Village Center available to a local educational institution for a future school. The existing farm house is to remain and could potentially serve as offices for the working farm or a farm stand. A mix of resi- dential building types surrounding the Village Common will emphasize the diversity of the community. A skating pond will act as the hub for outdoor winter activities and the grounds surrounding the meeting house will provide a gathering space for special events. S OZJTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t The R e t r o v e s t Companies C 2002The RetrovestCompanies/LooneyRic ksKiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as ph otogra ph ic works on I y and exc I udes any copyright fo r any portion of the arch itectura I, I a ndscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 9 Existing Ecological Conditions Proposed Wildlife Habitat Area Ecological Design There is a current opportunity to protect and restore the portions of the South Village site that contain the greatest ecological value. The South Village plan will restore several ecological systems including: mesic forests, savannas, pine forests, stream (riparian) system, wet native grasslands, emergent wetlands, drainage conveyance and infiltration opportunities (swales), and ephemeral wetlands. 0 100'2W' 500' IWNx, 1. Forest A. Mixed Hardwoods B. Oak, Basswood ❑ 2. Developed A. Landscape Trees/Shrubs B. Home/Farm, etc. 3, Water Bodies A. Pond B. Stream 4. Wetlands A. Sedge Meadow B. Black Ash Sedge Meadow C. Red Maple Sedge Meadow/Swamp D. Farmed Wetlands ❑ 5. Fallow Farm Field A. ason G Cod Serasses B. Birds Foot Trefoil C. Shrub Invaded 1. Young White Pine (natural invasion) 2. Dogwoods, Honeysuckle D. Early Successional Sapling 6. White Pine Stands and Plantation Monotypic Even Aged (planted and invasive pine stands) Field research indicates that much of the 220-acre site has been significantly impacted by years of livestock grazing, the predominance of invasive exotic plant species and the absence of any ecological management. As a result, many of the property's resources, including wetlands, woodlands, and fields are deteriorated and declining. This has led to a reduction in biodiversity+and decreased wildlife use and abundance, conditions that can be corrected through ecological restoration and management. r ■ 1. Proposed Habitat Area (98.19 Ac.) • Wetland • Existing and Reforested Weds • Area of Highest Activity ❑ 2. Agricultural Lands (35.57 Ac.) • Community Supported Agriculture • Native Plant Nursery El3. Residential Areas (86.03 Ac.) The ecological planning and restoration initiatives of South Village are designed to minimize the project's building footprint while protecting and enhancing undevel- oped wetland, upland, and agricultural areas. The design process began by conducting an ecological inventory. This inventory included the review of site hydrology, wildlife observation, and an assessment of adjacent land -uses and their potential to influence the South Village property. The results of this study provide the foundation for South Village's ecological plan- ning and restoration initiatives. The term "restoration" refers to existing vegeta- tion that will be enhanced through active man- agement, including the replacement of inva- sive exotic vegetation (including European Buckthorn and Southeast Asian Reed Canary Grass) with native plant species. The goal of this restoration program is to encourage native plant communities to achieve the level of ecological diversity that was found on the site prior to agricultural land -uses. Other goals are to stabilize soils, hold nutrients on the land, and manage stormwater runoff. The restored vegetation systems will also attract and encourage wildlife use and pro- vide the backdrop for passive recreational opportunities. The South Village project team includes one of North America's leading ecological restoration firms, Applied Ecological Services. This firm will coordinate all ecological planning and restora- tion. Information provided by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. SOUTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r I i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R c t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s © Sheet 1� 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, The portion ofthis copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyrightforany portion ofthe architectural, landscape and site designs contained within theworkdesigned by others. Ecological Restoration Plan The ecological restoration plan is comprised of two phases. The Remedial Phase involves major tasks such as brushing evasive buckthorn from the forests, replanting native grasslands and conducting reforestation, and installing a Stormwater Treatment Train system. This period usually lasts 3-5 years. The second phase, the Maintenance Phase, consists of annual tasks that preserve ecological systems over time, including noxious weed management, etc. ■ 1. Reforest/Restoration A. Reforestation B. Mixed Hardwoods 2. Residential Areas ■ 3. Water Bodies A. Created Ponds and Wetlands B. Existing Ponds ® 4. Wetlands A. Sedge Meadow Restoration B. Forested Wetland Restoration 5. Native Grassland and Wildflowx ■ 6. Agricultural Lands ® 7. Stormwater Treatment Area (approximate locations and numb, Swale A erPmOVed 8na etnent 100 �..�-.. e remove0i d too 0 removed 100 removed 00 _- 0 removed too Ecological Design (continued) - Stormwater Treatment Train Prairie r1� Wetland a Lake Stormwater management is a critical concern in any watershed. To address this, South Village will include an innovative ecologically de- signed stormwater management and detention system, known as a Stormwater Treatment Train . F (STT). The use of a Stormwater Treatment Train (STT), compared to conventional stormwater management and detention systems (i.e. curb, gutter and stormwater pipes) will substantially reduce surface runoff and results in greater infiltration and evaporation losses. The result is improved water quality both on -site as well as downstream through the watershed. STT's also create valuable wildlife habitat and enhance community open spaces. Unhealthy Oak Savanna / Woodland Unhealthy Emergent Wetland South Village's STT will use native and ornamen- tal landscaping, combined with engineering strategies, to manage the volume, rate and quality of stormwater flowing through and departing from the South Village property. South Village's STT is comprised of a series of linked landscape elements that manage and treat stormwater close to where the precipitation hits the ground and continuing treatment as it runs through the property. The goals of any STT are to: (i) reduce the volume of water leaving the land as surface runoff (through infiltration, evaporation, and evapotranspiration), and (ii) reduce the rate at which the remaining volume leaves the land by holding the water in micro -depressions, routing it through native grasslands, forests and wet- lands, designed to hold and beneficially utilize run-off. Landscaping The South Village Landscaping Plan will empha- size the use of native vegetation in its land- scape design and ecological restoration activi- ties. Use of native plantings will reduce mowing, irrigation, fertilizer and other contaminant loads generated by a built environment. As part of our commitment to environmental education, informational materials will be pre- pared to introduce and educate homeowners on native landscaping and other environmental restoration practices. Information provided by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. SOZJTH. VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyrightfor any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 1 I `7 0' 500' 1/4 mile Municipal Bikmvuy Quiet Path —� Neighborhood �- Green Wetlands Conservation Lands Working Faun Stormwrater Treatment Train Open Space Resource Plan By combining principles of ecological planning and Traditional Neighborhood Design, the Open Space Plan for South Village will create several distinct types of open space, all designed to promote a healthy interaction between people and the environment. They include: • A 35 acre working farm, operated and managed by the Intervale Foundation, will include community supported agriculture and a native plant nursery. • Internal neighborhood open spaces, in- cluding parks, commons, greens and pedes- trian courtyards within a short walk to each home. Stormwater Treatment Trains (STT) include a series of ecologically designed swales used to channel storm water through native grass- lands, forests, and wetlands designed to hold and beneficially utilize the run-off. STT's also provide valuable wildlife habitats and enhance community open spaces. • Wetlands and wildlife habitat, containing approximately 41 acres of wetlands (Class II and III), as well as upland habitat areas. To promote the health of these ecosystems, a preservation, restoration and management plan will be adopted to ensure biodiversity and encourage native plant communities. • Extensive trail network consisting of a series of well-connected pedestrian paths, bikeways and quiet paths that will link the various neighborhoods. The trail network will com- bine active and passive recreational opportu- nities and significantly expand South Burlington's existing recreation path network. S O-JTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h r R r t r o v r s t C o m p a n i e s © 2002The Retm"stCompanies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 12 South Village Farm -=r "The City plans to assist, support and promote agricul- tural use of land wherever possible... Agriculture contrib- utes to the aesthetic quality of the Quadrant The farms in the Quadrant will likely disappear if left unaided." -2001 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan The Intervale Foundation will establish a Native Plant Nursery at The South Village Farm. The Native Plant Nursery will not only provide plant material to South Vil- lage, but to native landscapers throughout the region. Agricultural Plan South Village will include a 35 acre working farm that will be managed and operated by The Intervale Foundation. With a proven track record and national recognition for their work in sustainable agriculture, The Intervale Founda- tion will be a valuable community partner. The South Village Farm will work to restore and reinvest in the property's agricultural history. The farm will have two primary agricultural operations: Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) A type of subscription farming in which buyers contract for a certain amount of fresh produce each week from the community farmer. This arrangement encourages local sustainable farming practices, and provides community members with fresh, healthy, usually organi- cally -grown produce and farm products. Native Plant Nursery South Village Farm will include one of New England's first native plant nurseries. Land- scape architects, ecologist, land planners, and private landowners throughout the country are rapidly learning the importance of native veg- etation for decreasing soil erosion, reducing maintenance costs, enhancing wildlife habitat and promoting biodiversity. Nevertheless, there are very few local or regional sources for pur- chasing native plant material. As a result, groups often buy native landscaping material from as far away as Wisconsin and Oregon. These plants are native species, but non-native genotypes, and often lack the hardiness to survive in Vermont and could potentially have a negative impact on local plant communities. To establish and operate the nursery, the Intervale Foundation will be assisted and sup- ported by Taylor Creek Restoration Nursery. Taylor Creek's ecologists have over twenty years of experience harvesting local seeds and propa- gating native plants from throughout the coun- try. Farm Housing On -Site housing will be made available to the community farmers and their families. In addi- tion, a limited number of seasonal housing units may be provided for summer interns and stu- dents. S ourrH VILLAcTE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n V e r m o n t T h e R c t r o v c s t C o m p a n i c s © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 13 Sidewalk & Trail Diagram •_—..�--- e OOOei 01 5 1 /4 mile a o; :o or l ro o FT Ap ILI 0 9 � `� oo `l • 'I �o e I �— ° Legend - Municipal Bikeway "A goal of this City is to become a community in which residents have safe and pleasant alternatives to roads and automobiles for both rec- reations and transportation by providing safe, off -road connections among neighborhoods, schools, parks and natural areas within South Burlington. " -2001 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Quiet Path Sidewalk © 2002 The Retr—st Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Pedestrian Connections An integrated system of pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, quiet paths, bike -ways, and farm roads will be woven throughout South Village to provide a variety of pedestrian and recre- ational opportunities. This network is de- signed to create a visually interesting experi- ence along active links between residential neighborhoods, the village center, parks and other open spaces. • Neighborhood streets will have sidewalks. • Bike paths will connect with the City's existing and expanding recreation path network. • A series of quiet paths (pedestrians only) and foot -bridges are planned to traverse greenways, to connect smaller green spaces within neighborhoods, and to facilitate the passive use of South Village's natural areas. SO -UT" VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g ton, V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v c s t C o m p a n i e s Sheet 14 el' II�A ail r ,1 LA n�unllll�(I 000"11— • � i � ook Building Types The Founders of South Village envision a com- munity of diversity in both its architecture and its residents. The architecture will be eclectic, but reminiscent of historic homes throughout the area. Many different housing types will be offered to accommodate a variety of households. In the Village Center a condominium building will recall the Vermont vernacular found around village commons such as Vergennes, VT. Single-family homes will vary from small cot- tages to larger 2-story singles. Attached Vil- lage Homes will consist of 2 or 3 townhomes designed to resemble one large house. Nestled in the woods, The Grove Neighbor- hood will consist of apartments having easy access to nature trails. Residential parcels have been specifically located to take advantage of the surrounding natural amenities and to provide views and direct access to open space from nearly every lot. Residents of South Village will have the choice of living on a neighborhood green or overlooking the wetlands, nestled in the woods or along a quaint village street, near a quiet path or the municipal bikeway. The quality of the streetscape will be enhanced by recessing the garages substantially behind house facades, or by providing rear lanes where appropriate. "Promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of affordable housing, while preserving the special char- acter of the Quadrant. " -Southeast Quadrant Planning Objective 2001 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan S OZITH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R c t r o v e s t C o to p a n i c s © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sleet 15 Street Hierarchy Diagram 1 1 I I I I , r �' Z, (:Jal 0' 500' 1 /4 mile Legend ❑ Village Connector 1 (2 lanes, no parking) Village Connector II (2 lanes, parking one side) Neighborhood Street Lane Rear Lane ❑ Connector Route Village Street Plan South Village uses an interconnected system of streets that responds to the geometry and natural features of the site. The hierarchy of streets is designed as an interconnected system that responds to the terrain and fo- cuses views to the prominent elements in the community as well as to distant mountain and lake views. The variety of streets in the plan are scaled to projected pedestrian and vehicular use, con- sistent with sustainable community design. No streets are designed solely for vehicular traf- fic. The design favors ease of use by pedestri- ans by employing the following techniques: • Narrow, slow -speed streets • Minimized corner radii to slow cars at intersections and to allow safer pedestrian crossings • Curbs and sidewalks appropriately de- signed for their function • On -street parking protects pedestrians from the actual and perceived danger of moving vehicles. S OZJTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i c s © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/LooneyRicks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright ertainin to images is asphotographic works onl and excludes an copyright for an portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 16 Ppertaining 9 Y YY P P 9 , 2 LANES PLANTING 51DE- STRIP WALK ' '0.-0" PUBLIC, R.O.W Village Connector 1 EA5MENT 11 Neighborhood Street MOUNTABLE t ,,�GURB EASMENT y�•• Village Connector 11 Lane EASh-MNT Street Sections Each street type in South Village is designed for specific use and conditions based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired park- ing conditions, specific physical conditions, public emergency access, and streetscape char- acter. These standards help to calm traffic while maxi- mizing interconnectivity. The streets, in combi- nation with adjacent buildings, have been inte- grally designed as places that foster safe pedes- trian activity and promote a sense of community. PLANTING STRIP t ""-0" MIN. MIN. PRIVATE ALLEY R.O.W. CIF PARKING S O -LiT IF-1 VILLA" E No IS PROVIDED) PARKING) Rear Lane South Burlington, Vermont T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s © 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. Sheet 1 Architects and Planners Looney Ricks Kiss (LRK) Jim Constantine Princeton, New Jersey R. Hunter Gee Nashville, Tennessee www.lrk.com Ecological Assessment, Planning & Design Applied Ecological Services Steven Apfelbaum Brodhead, Wisconsin www.appliedeco.com Wildlife Consulting David E. Capen, Phd. Grand Isle, Vermont Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning Arthur V. Gilman Northfield, Vermont Landscape Architecture Land -Works David Raphael Middlebury, Vermont www.landworksvt.com Civil Engineering Civil Engineering Associates David Marshall Shelburne, Vermont www.cea-vt.com Transportation Consultant TND Engineering Rick Chellman Ossipee, New Hampshire www.TNDengineering-com The South Village Team Village Founder The Retrovest Companies David Scheuer, President Ken Braverman, Vice President of Development Burlington, Vermont www.retrovest.com The Retrovest Companies is a real estate devel- opment group specializing in residential infill, urban redevelopment, and adaptive reuse. The company has over 20 years of experience devel- oping residential projects and is one of Chittenden County's premier builders. Our projects have received national recognition and awards for successfully blending design excel- lence and environmental sensitivity. Our mission is to build high quality residential, commercial, and mixed -use communities on sites where the natural and built environment will be significantly enhanced. We strive to create a model of responsible development in every community we build. Our Agricultural Partner The Intervale Foundation David Lane, Executive Director Will Raap, President of the Board of Directors Burlington, Vermont www.intervale.org The Intervale Foundation (IF) was founded in 1988 with the mission of developing sustainable ecological systems that provide solutions for productive land stewardship, innovative farming practices, sustainable economic development and agricultural education. The Foundation's vision is for a strong, community -centered agri- cultural industry throughout Vermont that will provide employment opportunities, wholesome, locally produced food, and a healthy environ- ment. The Intervale Foundation will accomplish its vision by providing support and resources that enable local, sustainable agriculture to thrive. The Foundation works to achieve this vision via defined program areas in environmental educa- tion, farmer training and technical assistance, social and value added ventures, and sustain- able community development. S OZ.JTH VILLAGE S o u t h B u r I i n g t o n V e r m o n t T h e R e t r o v e s t C o m p a n i e s Sheet 18 P 2002 The Retrovest Companies/Looney Ricks Kiss, Inc. The portion of this copyright pertaining to images is as photographic works only and excludes any copyright for any portion of the architectural, landscape and site designs contained within the work designed by others. South Village Sketch Plan Submittal June 14, 2002 Request for Waivers The following waivers are requested in support of the proposed plan for South Village, a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) with residentially scaled streets and traditional village layout. Planned Residential Developments Section Title Description & Reason 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations : A. Minimum right-of-way width for collector from 80' to 60' B. Minimum right-of-way width for Local street from 80' to (50' or 35') C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (26' or 20') D. Minimum pavement width for Local street from 30' to (18' to 24'). E. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 100' F. Minimum radius of curves for Local street from 300' to 75' G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' I. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150' J. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). 26.201 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement of an easement or right-of-way of at least 20' to 18' (for rear lane access). 26.202 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement limiting the number of lots being �1 served by a private right-of-way to three after which a public street shall be required. Request is to allow up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane) J South Village Request for waivers Page two June 14, 2002 Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The request is to waive the following requirements: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,600 SF. B. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40'. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' D Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%. O E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61 %. F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. �O G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF per unit to 3,600 SF. I. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60' J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%. L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%. M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 10' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which t e Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway. Too ppincus. DERAETIHENT OF ?LtLNNLi TG & LONUgG 575 '-.OFq-ET 8'rREET SO= BU LI GTON, VE13MONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 -qU Date: --I ly I �o { o2 Rinses: 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August i, zooz Ken Braverman Retrovest 70 S. Winooski Avenue Burlington, Vermont 0540I Re: 1840 Spear Street Dear Mr. Braverman: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting my comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, August 6, zooz at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, S75 Do Street. Sincer, fy, Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl./td -L,ittlew.... %-arolyn Long 17t leton Long , Lucien & Jane Demers 1720 Spear St. X 0 Spear St. P.O. Box 359 3 S. Burlington, VT 05403 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Jct., , VT 05452 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset St. 14 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear St. 614 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald Cummings 01.' 1811 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davidson 1827 Spear St. ,a S. Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Shatzer X4 217 North Kentucky Lakeland, FL 33801 la rry Stone 0-0 i9 Rangely Rd. :hestnut Falls, MA 02160 iarlan & Joan Sylvester 003 Spear St. helburne, VT 05482 'illiam Stanley 751 Spear St: )uth Burlington, VT 05403 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Janet Farina 1807 Spear St. ,IS S. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Ayse Floyd 126 1813 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Lawrence Veladota 4 1865 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Eleanor McNamara 1975 Spear St. `1 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 4012 Spear St. Q Shelburne, VT 05482 Shane & Holly Deridder �� 192 Catkin Dr. So. Burlington, VT 05403 Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Mary Pappas 1809 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall I (I 1815 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Binal It* Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 William Reed 13 1967 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester nn 1985 Spear St. 1V S. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Suresh & Girijalakshmi� Swaminathan 197 Catkin Dr. So: Burlington, VT 05403 athew & Beverly Broomhall James & Christina Robert 'Floral St. Stanley &Carolyn Pallutto ' 30 35 Floral St. 3' 33 Floral St. P— I. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Michae7lBoitvier 33 31 Floral St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 No Text PUM PUPAnD BY: ' 7 ;'_-_ I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 %, F/ r\\- ILW \\ \ I l l l r l l l l 1 1 `� !E k*T I � , I 1 1 \I 1 Ir / T.r - 3703 t \ \ \\ \ I r T.Lpnw. Ms 72e flip Fu $15 M 1112 / I \ \ter \�` ` �� 1 1 \ l \ \ \ 1 wes 1 1/ 1 \ mJw osm ti The Retrovest Companies P on= CONMWANTS: PYNNI6WRQMEL^T LOONEY RtKM ►ass CAIL CAL EPGRIERN OASSOMIM ° -- , I 1, ; y I l ^ \---\ \\ \ \ 1 1 I ► / ,:"" shft4�IYlEVT I / 1\ \ 1\ \ h \\ \\ \`\ \\\ / 1 I 1 1 / 1AimfiNl11®1 : - - - - - \ \ ,1 / I 1 1 1 \\ TND aloln�wci \ �p LAB // / I 4- 7T _-..� , v\ //' \ \ / \` /' i 11 /' / i�1���, /WPIJED ECOLOGICAL SFRW= '// BRONDH6ID, M `----- I I , / / / ' / // I08ai-�r._�.. ✓` �,� f 11'1 -- r r36s-, ;' , '\. I �� / �r MALE ,w..r.I \ `m R ��Itrr Paaacr mza: l0r tmrr 1 -,^ �avm °° t1 SOUTH VILLAGE . 1 -/ , 1 .. 1 \ / / ; , 1 I I l /.�,.,,,�1 1' �\• \;, 1 / � / I t / 7jep / I ih, ' ► I I l \ I r I / / /' ,- —r" I I / ; / y - I 1 ! I I / / 1 / \ ,Y i \\ \ / \ / / A�fMt lr �a l SPEAR S7REET 8 I l l l r Ir , r r r , \ a i \ \ 1 , 1 ► 1 r f II i 1 1 1 r % I I 1- , ,- -- / 9 1 \ �� "' \ \ \ / / 1seAloM, eetMoc Au $1 \ \ / / AL.L.EN ROAD 11 � I l l r l l l �, I � 1 � 1 I I / '( `�i `�� ; � ✓ •1 \ `��� ` �---' 1 \ ✓ / i t�tlm/ I , \� L 1 \\ // y�n-I111�M r ! I a_ T : / / - ` r-- - r,. Z \t j 1 \ / whit tar tlaoo�MR'wur►1 [11991D ! 1 t 1 I I / / \ /_ , I I i J i ` \ / for µ�°''d''"'', j i� I , I L , \ Pey#. ; _ \ \ �� ,r / �t n • t>toPr PRDPOW Ir I I 1 , Pd , •.__`f I "P Mgt Wr noa<r - {{{; : WA -ta MMTt31 i �� 1 t / PADPDB® r brr I mo' NRnp LIM I I I I 1 I I 1 j 1 r y+; 1 \\ \` `\ I - ` 1-. 1 , , . �� , , h' / , \ \ , 1 \ `•. \ / o � we MMMM aM Att PROPOSM us"w Ao" 8EVAIRLME� D " I I I f \ �, / , / \ \ avraa`Ye AL�oL�:�aerrar PWOPOB® f \ .,1. \ _w `: / �, / ��� / n _ I II ~1 1 1 1 G. 1 i/ \1 \I \M <tii--.___- n I I / , \ �T I. , -.,\ r / I �I I , , IOf10EIWM 'roiNDlllo mamaRAW OOI�pO!-sett I I , I 1 \ 1 I y, e ^ / \ , j I 1 t / �( , `� I I 1 - 1 \ \ 1 , j /; 1 1 t0► px • Pl4 f1 PAO grATM Id I ,/ I I 1 I 1 1 I f I / / ' / 1 1 , / / r ,� r \ / / k A ( ..y-. 1 / / •tsett _ OOBiNR Omvw 1 1 r , T � l�' 'r ' 'I 1 ♦i i � :,' „i � / 1/x 1 / i•t , \ / / ,� ,{� 11 � .\ 1 I , I 1 �71BtLJ11f 1 1 1 t 1 t , i�., 1 f I \ I ._ _ _ _' j i ♦ L/ \ \ �''' \ / y,,. 1-- - .. / \- L l I 1 I / mmw,,OF Rkaw 1 I \ 1 \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ L / � � 1 � '� - split i I y \ t► / ����-- � t ✓ � __-=�--� I yLR wn eotaa arse \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 , `ice \ 1 ` ! I \ /� , t�-. ` \\ ' , . -�, i - ^•- Plaw Q fl! 1 \ -`�' r 1 / t a 1 \ \` r 1 CONNECT TO EXISTTN \'. `Ire j, ,t r ! `� L 1 I� w1,/�'-� , li _ L. P r7, ^P I {. \ r I '2' WATER MAIN `!1' , \ _ , ,I \� �`-1 h; t \ \ I \. `'J� \ \, 1 �I) ,T� \ •- TNt3 AEp4olLsar C \ I I I I I I I I 1 \ I 1 11I\ I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 1I I h;a 16— I I/ . ---\,jfll I \ ,r0l✓IOUIN N/I1II?DOm110 OA.YEtINE PROPOSED WATER & SEWER f //\i`I ►\I If,I �II 1I� 1,i 'I1 1;11 ; I�I i I�1 1I� 1� I i \. i . � ✓ i� ,, r� : ,/ '`/1: 1iI IIIl I � , \`\�_`�' '� /\ � 1_ _,--' ; I I,, '. ---- � I ;, ~�rr /, IJ \1 SIA!}T vr �os,o., `\; SITE PLAN / 1 1,1 1 1 IGRAPHIC SCAL&/ l % drs ammsmm I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ► 1 \ I I l\\ \\ \ 0 1 / ---- m , / 1 / / ------- JUNE,2002 wAlm / l I I I l I 1 1 I I, • I I I ` / - -' . � / \ \ / ,r / 1 - / - m NO:c / I / � /, �=--� I i ! !l i l! i I i ,/ i/ li ice' i✓' l 1 \\ \\ \� `\ 1 / /' �:�- -1, .<' _`�, i Fssr ra SXEMH PL�YN PLNB PREP&= BY: f /—TRAIL OPTIONAL � �9w.ie oroNAi. .,y I I B�1 ti IM/BT1 BLBGADOiM. low BTOIW L 1a MN eo-o1 Village Connector 1 (2 lanes, no parking) W7M Bilit s � w L >o" a l oNe m rl-L,ANr1 PAW'& ONB SIOe STRIP 96'-0' ftaLIG ROH Lane l 1 r r II1 - 9Q B1QI001BY IIOr/ NIITsi flit 29BM. � art 7i1� I&M MASM MT Village Connector II (2 lanes, parking one side) 1 1 1 1 r MpUNTAOIE i — Cu„ o aw, i PARKINO) Rear Lane BW BLMl10011BIL grow MUM mWm faliY. � I M. k� .&Amu 1 e ASMer.T Neighborhood Street n d' �a 1 v� so . 202 10M ANnu smth, //0B NOMMI N TIM 07200 ?YpAaM 019 726 1110 :a. 815 7281112 MJW DSM ANle7Y D$MAPPU1N'1': The Retrovest Companies PBO]ECf CONSULTANTS: per LOONEY RICKS KISS APSITYaLF, na CNL EMPASS wo ASSOCIATES Wets Vr TND H GPA3mm 0summ NH MAMOM A01d/7ICr LAM)-WDA/f5 AWDLBK , yr APPLAE) ECOLOOKAL SERWM IN SOUTH VILLAGE 2aalh Burl la 21 on, V1ea o al 'I'hc Krrr„� �,r Coin pn nl<s SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD PROPOSED STREET SECTIONS 2Y1010 ■om JUNEr 2002 N N.T.S. C5 SKETCH PLAN 01243 ,wb sa 200 To: Applicants From: Stephanie Smith, City of South Burlington RE: Project Staff Notes Date: July 1.7, 2002 Re: Application SD-02-44 of Retrovest, 310 units on 242 acres of undeveloped land. Overview: Sketch plan request Retrovest for 310 units on 242 acres of undeveloped land. Issues: ■ The applicant should overlay the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map to show zoning district boundary lines and determine developable and restricted areas. Staff needs to know the acreage of the developable area in order to determine the maximum density. The Board will look at Section 6.606 when considering development within the designated restricted areas as shown on the SEQ map. ■ The Board does not have the ability to waive Sections 26.201 or 26.202 of the zoning regulations. ■ The Board will review the proposed development as a whole; therefore, the waivers addressing coverage for single family lots are not necessary. Staff recommends the applicant set coverage maximums on individual lots to allow for the addition of decks and patios, and not to trigger final plat amendment review. ■ Section 25.103 of the zoning regulations can be waived by the Board, and will be addressed along with the criteria found in Section 6.602 of the zoning regulations. The applicant should be prepared to speak to these criteria. ■ The sketch plan should show the location of proposed utilities, (water and sewer). ■ The sketch plan should show all delineated wetlands and their 50 foot buffers, and a letter with information on when the wetland delineation was conducted and by who. ■ Portion of lots are contained within the C.O. District/wetland buffer, staff recommends the applicant adjust the lot boundaries so as to not encroach into the CO District. ■ What is the proposed use of the community buildings found in the restricted area? The applicant should be aware certain uses are allowed within the SEQ restricted areas under Section 6.501 of the zoning regulations. ■ The applicant should be aware the maximum density for this development is 290, (242 acres x 1.2= 290). The following should be provided with the preliminary plat application: o landscape plan based on construction costs, and a separate streetscape planting plan. o cut sheets for all proposed exterior lighting including street lights. o correspondence from the South Burlington School District evaluating the potential impact this project may have on the school system. o a traffic impact study o ... as well as all other items found in Section 203 of the subdivision regulations. Completeness of Plan: The applicant has submitted sufficient information for Development Review Board to consider the application with the above exceptions noted. Please provide additional information by July 30, 2002. Recommendation: Staff recommends this application be authorized to proceed for sketch plan consideration at the August 6, 2002 meeting. v ,. JV- ,.. '-: - '• ." �y`temPLAN9 PREPARED HY, $::. ! p, e ., . ..#m^.=",a••«..,...•^ +�, r`r s' x• e b�� E: "''',,�ry'ee Ili°"v' r 1 _ m G „ Crnr A0004tEi. 1NG rasar40 vrar,M Oil' s 11 E 1 't'� _ 1 � 1 r t ,I . 't ;. f , ,l / �ybl l r ,% � ' /✓ � - f/ // � ' � �C ''/ `' � "7. ,.; aaaa, : -_. \ '1��y h f.., _� �. �. /r\1 F' i/ !�' , .. � ... ,. „� � :: `/ / / . w4! w #.: M- ✓ ? t i / 1 ' f > xh y i• 4ir\ ` \, `-�' `»'- � ' •. � 1Iftl Z" � \ � "t s, , j / �/ / ✓ '� ( 1 S 1 !: \q . \ r \v 1 1 I �1� . - f ��� wryje M" sd, , a"'rw X;: " �I x DSM r j � DSM Ar APPUCANT: ;, f t � - j4, ! `_ �� ., 7 J / t � �. r• .,, r ., j \� ', e �: ,�+ ,< _ - The Retrovest Companies -�""4• \ ,� . A • - PROJECT CON9ULTANT9: ERIDINGER 1. r ' t 4 t I I 1 t I � PL4MW9b4NC/ffaVT LO ;`�„ l s ?F !G ONY MM WS *r•4� «IT WV "yr q'aJ AMMIA TN � Th At;A r r i / / / / / i r // / I „. "` 1 Irr + O / %• I I 1 ' ..�'• t« � 7 •.y �9 A4`•i:. / ,... I +. 1 / Vi % • - 1 1 1 r"4P+` } r' o tom[ MOWS?i111 . ° m • ` ?rx.. "°, -yt< ^"1.,�rytr...: Y r .q 7."� . rt. / - 1 1 1I\F' i / 1 1\. ,\ \\ \\ \ 1 S '9• f \ \ // ,rr ff fy / I\\ \T If f. v iwi q u" %/NrM HU1i1111�4 P \ .y 1 nt t " 1 TND E711(iU1iEE4rNii ossr w. 4 x-«,�,,,.- .� I � � �°,� 1,V#A2961PEA190'i7EDT ll \�. : f ` /I I y e 1 IAND•Wl7R.V rAli�6 r, r 1 `',,,,� 1 rteaol �usr I/r n f r r r r �A At4J111 W r APRAD ECM 0Gr-4L $FAYICfS r I I I 'Ir* °tea d 1. y r ! f / j, 1' , r M{ y� "1 8R6ADHEAD N7 I E,r 1- d r 1 I I 1,'' i.. a . rc' ` �� ' ^I} I i r i r r i r r /1 r�p���� t \ 1 ' 1 r / , ts; � ., ,� *� ` ,��� � •.: r � • �t �, Ro,scT TiTLs. ,' SOUTH VILLAGE a, ,q q,/ 1 ' / 1 r 1 . 1 �/ f I I i r / ,- r,",% !fir . • - - It SPEAR STREET ft « r� /ALLEN ROAD 1 li 1 i it ill I r. rJ + t" t 1 j / j r' �; ,« ,ate. : , .w,� • • • ,wu ,� #`. rl fad- � t .".. .r""I''..:'.4"" �. // �' r.. .. I � •• t +� ��; I / �"„`a' f � �t't"' ... v I ,_. ... ..._— —_— ___ _. . • i / . _ , � „, tom, , n •.,., `�i / 1 „ 1 / , , r - � r �, � ;�, «,�,. \\ I \ I � 1 .. `u.l I I ,� 1 I.;, / \\ \ I ,,tr f rr ..'!"_ . !,r*�y x• ,,� �.�'�IP;%4 I Jf rrr.:, <F ' 'E"'IS�, ,•ry, '.t, e, I . 1 I ,n y t r ! � \ } I I I h r yk . �? 1 I - • I. _I 1 r Il \.3-� ✓ t r\ r I rrl // ! / ,� r/i Ff//r Ar1.- W 1 �! \ ary 1 / / 11•'" 1� Iw.l '` f r ` I,.. r' j f Il b'I rr rrr •�/ rl/ 1 / rrr // r,l `, fl / .I 1'. ', 1 i lr. ;�� ` ; �' 1 1 ` \. 4� r•p, . ', k.•"'t�•'.i t �; i 1�'."�.:.y,. ,y, �l !. ------- �:•. "wrnr'rv'•111°1 \ ` 1 t ,�, 11 �\ • , i' I \ \ �. LOCATION MAP „ Mrw .. ,. '`Y \ \ cl, 1 t 1 . ".-'IM + \ 1 \ \ O I I r '• .f f / l \ I \ \ / ,J �.;, sr' e \:_h 1" = 5000' ,;,� �. •• �'1'~• 1 _ _'{,' 1` a , i 1 . � �> \ 1 \ { \ ' ,,y'\ I I f �.. l 1 I \ gt`� '' y \ a , � /'�t_ r , '�I[ I • $ t , ��� rzrFi { 1 ^. I I ,, r ^� 1 \ \ \\ 4 •�� `''"`,ij trr � . 1 \\ - � _.. ,.�> � � •rt � "-J f i 1 .I 1 I i ��:i( r.. . 1 1 :.: ( 1 f♦ r -. ,'r . \\ \\ \ 4h 0� \ � \ ty, r � E ,J. � � "' 1 4 1 1 11 s Y • co } r: , ~.m... \\ toil" I sl f , I I I j �^' `� rr r ! \f t } I }�� t � I EXISTING 1.�;,,,}„, , 1 ,. �, 1 ,,.� � • .•- _ �' ,� CONDITIONS li ' of ''•"� PLAN P� ., /f J,n^ �' '(���•'� .�� ! 1 1 I I t I ,.: �i:/ � 11 i J \It \ i " � ` ; /r 1 •� l .{I.,11.wr rrk t ,, I / -- r �✓ mama mao �,. ' � �� / "' / � \ \\ \ .,r, � II % r' ' J -- - , ter/ A r ✓r }-, r . // I rr /l 1 •\ �\i �> 1\ [ t\\ I - -�` c - _ Va2W .. 1 lann - eoo 01243 rt A41- PLANS PREPARED SY: Y 1 ® of GRAPHIC SCALE m0 O IOC 100 IN rfar , 1 1mh - 200 ft TaT,A- PROJECT PMRCFL-2#2ACRES ZOMANO - SO INEAST 01f40RANT MAU RYLY., WMM 1oT AAN • lsoro! AOL LOT gIDM►AfMaOdLBrJ- a FT W. LDT A10MAM NO11HD7O0• too Pr AM la'WBfrNL !>A.tY- 1.1 fDAL' AIORr MIT am /oPr 1MAR APr M FWWr YARD 91nVM ON ALL Do1DPM1rm OOLLBMM AOAI» Man- FAI L1` WMAV Lar Am-1$moSPM LMM Ali Lar AR AM PM Sr - 120 Fr AM LOT RKMrAGE MOLLB M-710Pr "a AmEsmiL Comm- 12LM mmom LMr•Aao Aww OPT am OPT . >b Fr W AKW YARD WFIVICK O11 ALL o®MMTW ODLLWFOR AQW COVERAGE REQURMMM AIRMAN EIAIAM OOWAFAM•AM I MLam aaaawr• <1% PRGPOW LILfM fD ---SDK AM,MAAU Lor d m9VAE-AM Ewmm LOT OOKSW-<1% A17QW Lar oDvwvm-I"% onn&v ar mom- PALL R QQAJQMS P.O. Lam( a LYMXWVL & VT awl APPMA ..- M RETROVEST COAfANgS 70 SOM WAMOOM AVENUE OLFAMK"m vr 06w-am Aq ELTLOrA770e imo SFEAR STAET SOUTH BUMMaTOK VT SKETCH PLAN .hrr 14. 2002 2DY ' ON ' Wn ' Soufi, 040E q. M1W.. 37203 ,W-hon. B15 125 t110 -- $15 125 1112 9`4,11n1u 1111�I.1 DSM DSM ANT: The Retrovest Companies PROACT CONSVLTA.NTS: ACT LOONEY RMS KISS MASHVX & M cm svmwzR CML ENOWEERINQ ASSOCIATES SHELB J . Vr TND ENO NEENPoNO 068ME& N1 LAAOlti171AE ARLVA7EL^T tt eVW OM6VTAL AAMAW APPLIED PC:OLOWCAL SERVICES .M SOUTH VILLAGE S ooth Burlloyt. o. Venmont SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD (PROPOSED I SITE PLAN t�c rain= JUNE, 2002 2W MA . . M0. 01243 PIANS PHEPAYED HY: GRAPHIC SCALE at RBT > 1 1-h . ew M- r airA- PROJECT PARCEL - MACRM ZONwo - SOv>H&Sr Gwdawr AMMM LOT AW-1;000W SOL LOT MCMAOEAO"a -spy UK � MoN >aFr WIE AEEOBl7ML i7BwIY-iJ NNW Orr SER 2Orr AM lnrr W AWW WM a I&= ON ALL DMINAM 0MLEGM MMMW MIAM-AuKr � LOTAM_wA 8FMMWu MIL 120T AWL "OT A NNW 2DFr WE OPT Arm SOFT W M W MW MY&W ON ALL OEEMO YM oauoloa AOAOE COVEMW IE O E991OM MIAMN fIJDIRi 00MrvOE-EOa OWIESE SLUBM 00mENOE-41% FROPOW MMMOM OMOV0E-AM HAEEOM LOT a0mrAW-4ft m0E1SdE LOT OOY . <tri MOFOOO LOT 000MOff. AM ONAM OF ' PALL R. OAULXM P.O. am a LYNDOWALLA yr 0EEE1 THE RETROYEST COkO A VM 70 SOUTH WMOOSV AYF]IEIE &M LOWTO1K YT 065014w A9a&VrLO04r) YYN IM SPEAR START SOUTH 9LF& 4G7OK YT OWN SKETCH PLAN .haw 14% 30M 2D9 10. n— S—, p106 Nw All• I.— 372M Tdyhm. S15 Its 1110 1. 515 126 1112 wm 1s j OSM iypawn 0SM APPIJCANT: i� The Retrovest Companies PROJECT COIdSMUNTS: am 61N91YS�T WIL 9AGMEWNG ASSOCL47M 7M469C 6Yt,�IV159i TNO SNONESRM OSSIPE& NH yr APPL9D ECOLOWAL SEA PROJECT TTTLE: SOUTH VILLAGE SPEAR STREET & AL.LEN ROAD (PROPOSED I SITE PLAN JUNE, 2002 2W C3B raw. a6. 01243 PLANS PREPARED BY: - ---------- Village Connector 1 (2 lanes, no parking) Village Connector 2 (2 lanes, parking one side) Neighborhood Street "_4 % 11 -7 ;J IT Lil L 1, 7 w e .1. GRAPHIC SCALE re m w FUT 1 bh - 2DO tL ZN 10th Aw- s Lh. 0" Nnh,11, 1- 11201 TWwh-. 615 726 1 ID ror 815 M 1112 2 Duvw Mjw DSM LPFIMM DSM APPLICANT: it _j, The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONSULTANTS: PL4MW9W40KW*7Wr LOONEY PJM M Apmf#XLA TIM oft CIVIL ENGRA59MOASSOMTO SHIIII.&M. vr 2z LAN04IDM ANDDLEMM. Vr SVMPKRfAIWM MAAWM APPLIED E0OLCKMM SERVXW aWADMIM WF PROJECT TMEM SOUTH WILL q� SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD STREET HIERARCHY DIAGRAM M" DYi➢IO DWG JUNE, 2002 WAU 1. a 2W C4 SKETCH PLAN 0120 .Iwo 14, 2M 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Village Connector 1 (2 lanes, no parking) P.AWF Neighborhood Street PI"µTIN!► I 91RIP 1 0'-0' i '- 1 9�0• NIN. MIN. PRIVATE A1.1.0'f ROri ft� PARKIN! INO I! PROVIOlD) PMKIN67 Rear Lane Village Connector 11 (2 lanes, parking one side) Lane P.A.91?.NT wo !Otn nv.nu. 'Soule, MOE ND.n NII`, T.nnmlMtlll 3i9DS Tdwhena 619 77! '110 .n. 615 726 'liy D#AVW MJW D� DSM IPPIO m DSM APPLICANT: The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONSMUNTS: LOONEY RIM LOSS NAiA IN CM BMARR CML ENGMnEERvO ASSOCJ47M ,V*LB ua.W- yr rnvWC SWOM 1N® ENO/NEERNi O 092M AW LANDWORMS AIMOLAKW,, yr Ls1uy0Md ML NENAIIL/M9 ;vPPL1Ea ECOLOWAL SERWM PROJECT TMA: SOUTH VILLAGE i,, h 6. I I C< oa , V ,. nn SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD PROPOSED STREET SECTIONS un JUNE, 2002 N.T.S. Cry' SKETCH PLAN JIM. ft. PLANS PREPARED BY: n Legend Aw Municipal Bikeway l: "J `h Quiet Path 4 -- Sidewalk ®(9 - -- — - -- - 00 0 4 ;• 1 t; o -� , UL-� , 2011 .,. I�v�n MICR MM J^OJ W=. 515 In vt pl! T20 ,112 ws® WM DSM PLIAP CAN'. c The Retrovest Companies PROJECT CONSULTANTS: �T LOONEY -10M )OSS TIV aw s v CNIL E MOWEERM ASSOCAM SII6.&N%k' Vr Ift"M 91KJr1EB'V TND ENO OSUPEF SH LAND-1MOROM Vr BYHROASMM gaWAN APPLM E'COLOGCM SSWIM aRDUVEMw pmJI= ?1'1'LE: SOUTH `%ILLAGE 9oorh Oa rlinal••n, Vrrmoet SPEAR STREET & ALLEN ROAD Q�®M SIDEWALK & I TRAIL DIAGRAM GRAPHIC SCALE wn D�raa NUlon JUNE, 2002 r 1•. ear C6 I ! h - 200 It SKETCH PLAN — "°' June 14, 2WR 01243 W9 i pp JU LLF I Littlet-rt:& Carolyn Long Littleton Long g Lucien &Jane Demers 1720 Sear . 3 p X 1720 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Box 359 x Jct., , VT 05452 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset St. 14 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald Cummings 1811 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset St. _5 S. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Janet Farina 1807 Spear St. '23 S. Burlington, VT 05403 01.1 William & Ayse Floyd �� 1813 Spear St. 05403 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davidson 1827 Spear St. 116 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Shatzer '.17 North Kentucky�6 ,akeland, FL 33801 (arty Stone 9 Rangely Rd. chestnut Falls, M-k 02160 arlan & Joan Sylvester )03 Spear St. Qj 1e1burne, VT 05482 illiam Stanley 51 Spear St. .nth Burlington, VT 05403 thew & Beverly Broomhall Floral St. Burlington, VT 05403 3o Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Lawrence Veladota 1865 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Mary Pappas 0. 2. 1809 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall 15 Spear St. Cl'A S. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Binal t� 1845 Spear St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 William Reed 1967 Spear St. 05403 S. Burlington, James & Eleanor McNamara 1975 Spear St. 0 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 4012 Spear St. Q Shelburne, VT 05482 Shane & Holly Deridder �GI 192 Catkin Dr. i So. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Christina Robert 35 Floral St. 31 So. Burlington, VT 05403 13 VT 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear St. t� S. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Suresh & Girijalakshmia Swaminathan ! 197 Catkin Dr. So. Burlington, VT 05403 Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto 33 Floral St. 32- So. Burlington, VT 05403 Michael 3ouvier 33 31 FIoral St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 to UVM &'So. Bur. 2•% 2A PROJtCT SITE 10 Taulkins Property SHFLBtq?,NE. & Lake Champl To SOUTH ;rff I ShELIBURNE rollm na "all CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANINPPG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLLIIGTON, VEP.MOINN' 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number SD- 02 - APPLICATION FOR SI BDFV-ISION SKETCH PLAT REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. - 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) RCLUI R. C'alklns Pa. 60X 82, L.yneaonulf/e, YT asssi PK0A1,J5" 80,2 &.ZG - 5793 VAx # &a - 6-26 - //GO DALCavAr,6E' IV-1197 50.$url.Jancl Rec. 1!Niq� P,q 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Sbel6urne tand.Rer. Kflo, 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing addb 70 SdcnH WiAloosfc/ Av6 . phone and fax #) R.ETRO✓�ST.gSSOC/AYES tNC. uRL/N677-0n! Vr csyol -Phone. Yw F& 3 e32 3 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) OPr/on! 7V PUIZCH,15�� 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Ri `TMoj/2�57-, 70 -,`V-PY1Naosx1,4j1,!E . &�gLlN(,TO/v. VT /<EM BRA✓02,14Ah/ AT 05, 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 1840 ;59E.4R sr, ,56.61-1Ri-11Ve,7 /. YT 05t/03 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 16410 -O/840. F 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) ,V0 acrC5 of fal-M /and 1Jo /0179erM use w/41,-70dduotecV slnq/e b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 339 dl Proposed height of building (if applicable) 05 n�q u/afed by 6y Of 4� ' Bud. e.) N>>rnber of residential units (if applicable. new units and existing units to remain) 316 f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing G l % Proposed 5. 5 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing < I % Proposed 13.9 % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing n /a _% Proposed (s ee ?,-,o�e& 3 301< K guest fog aver'- g-"AdN c D 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) /50' &'ACO pO IN ex�sf�n9 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) See atfaehed 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) see a#aehed. 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE -& 6e defermll7ed 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is free. EXHIBIT A SKETCH PLAN The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. o Name and address of owner of record and applicant. o Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. o Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. o Location map showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. o Boundaries and area of all contiguous land belonging to the owner of record. o Boundaries and area of the proposed subdivision. o Existing and proposed layout of property lines. o Type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land (easements, covenants, etc.). a Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets or private ways. o Existing zoning boundaries. o Existing watercourses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. o Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. o Number and location of parking spaces (see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations). o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. o A list of waivers desired (if any). o All applicable information required for a site plan application shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, planned unit development, or planned residential development (please see site plan application). d 06/13/2002 15:49 8026261160 CALKINS PAGE 04 SENT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 883 1339; JUN-1^ A? 15:36; PAGE 4/5 I hereby certify that all the infonmatiou requested ns of this Application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my ktowlvd�e. X SiC3NA Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: CD 6 � -I / C-2, I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: 17 Complete ❑ Incomplete uirector o"lanning & Zoaing or Designee a APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SOUTH VILLAGE 6/14/02 11) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of modification of municipal facilities Waste Disposal: The proposed project will be served by a direct tie to the existing gravity collection system associated with the Larkin project on Allen Road. A conceptual plan for collecting and transporting the wastewater from the proposed development areas of this property to the City of South Burlington's sewer collection system. The proposed system internal to the property would follow the contour of the land terminating at a sewage pump station located at the southwest corner of the property. From this point the wastewater would be pumped via a 6" PVC force main into the gravity sewer collection system located on Allen Road. This system flows by gravity to the recently upgraded Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Water Supply: CEA has contacted Mr. Jay Nadeau, Water System Superintendent for the City of South Burlington, to address the design fire flow requirements for this project and the existing system capabilities. Mr. Nadeau indicated that the existing system has the ability to provide reliable potable and fire flows for the proposed project. The Dorset Farms project is fed via an existing 12" ductile iron water main that extends southerly approximately 1.5 miles from the existing water tank on Dorset Street. This 12" main leaves Dorset Street and runs westerly along the main access into Dorset Farms. Mr. Nadeau requested that this water main be connected to the water main on Spear Street near the Allen Road intersection with a 12" diameter line to complete the Southeast Quadrant loop. Mr. Nadeau also reiterated the City's position relative to providing looping of the proposed hamlet areas in support of the City's efforts to improve the reliability of the fire flow and potable water delivery system. Design - The proposed project if built out to 310 (three -bedroom) units, would require an estimated design flow of 125,000 gallons per day. Based upon the service elevation of 480 at the water tank on Dorset Street, this site could expect a static pressure to the residential buildings ranging from 40 to 50 psi. Utilizing the conceptual plans developed to date, the preliminary distribution system includes the installation of 19,700 feet of new water main which would generally would follow the new roadway system. This layout assumes an average hydrant spacing of 300 feet in the residential areas and 500' in the cross country areas with two high spots requiring an air relief structure and valving at the 500' intervals. South Village Sketch Plan Submittal June 14, 2002 Request for Waivers The following waivers are requested in support of the proposed plan for South Village, a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) with residentially scaled streets and traditional village layout. Planned Residential Developments Section Title Description & Reason 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations : A. Minimum right-of-way width for collector from 80' to 60' B. Minimum right-of-way width for Local street from 80' to (50' or 35') C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (26' or 20') D. Minimum pavement width for Local street from 30' to (18' to 24'). E. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 100' F. Minimum radius of curves for Local street from 300' to 75' G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' H. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' I. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150' J. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). K. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). L. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph). M. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). 26.201 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement of an easement or right-of-way of at least 20' to 18' (for rear lane access). 26.202 Approval for Lots with No Lot Frontage - Waive requirement limiting the number of lots being served by a private right-of-way to three after which a public street shall be required. Request is to allow up to four units to be served by a private right-of-way (Lane) r 1 � ) South Village Request for waivers Page two June 14, 2002 Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The request is to waive the following requirements: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,600 SF. B. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40' C. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' D. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%. E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61%. F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF per unit to 3,600 SF. I. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60' J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%. L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%. M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 10' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway.