Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 8 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear StreetBu�AKPDERSON MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Law Jacalyn M. Stevens, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Michael L. Burak" Gateway Square • 30 Main Street Jon Anderson Post Office Box 787 Thonws It. Melloni` Burlington, Nimnont 05402-0787 Michael B. Rosenberg' Phone: 802 862-05(l ) Shane AN'. McCortnaek"T Far: 802 862.8176 AV Scott Fewell0 ���t��'•�'tla�� l .com ,ilia Freiburg °Also admitted in New lurk •Also admitted in the District of Columbia #Also admitted in \lassaehusetts 13Also admitted in Connecticut & Pennsrlcania April 11, 2005 Re: Appeal of Vallee; Environmental Court Docket No. Dear Jackie: Over the past few days, Skip and Denise Vallee and South Village, Inc. appealed the determination of the Development Review Board. South Village, Inc. also filed with the South Burlington Development Review Board a Motion and Request to Reconsider Findings of Fact and Decision and a Motion to Stay Appeal Period. The last two filings are designed to allow the South Burlington Development Review Board to do some additional work on its decision before we begin spending money to review it on appeal. Skip and Denise Vallee have no objection to providing an opportunity for such work. We believe, however, that since appeals have been filed, the Environmental Court now has jurisdiction over this matter. Thus, South Village, Inc.'s request can only be satisfied by remanding jurisdiction of the matter to the South Burlington Development Review Board. Skip and Denise Vallee would have no objection to a remand if it were requested by South Village, Inc. JTA/alb cc: Mr. Ray Belair Mark G. Hall, Esq. SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jtastevens3.doc Very truly yours, o Anderson Post -its Fax N to 7671 Date G pageslo To From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # C � C 0 Phu. II End 0.52 m completed) 1�110.5 mi� ���• � - �/ T `r o.4m I11 f ;ij 10. Bike Path crosses o.9m—' 11 1 II' I II from northern side of r — I road to southern side. I 0.2 nil Phase II of Rec Peth t, (Phase ll of development -� — after Village is completed Phase 11 4 I aswall �\ Overview of the South Village Recreation Path, Pedestrian and Quiet Path Network Recreation Path Phasing Phasing is proposed as follows: Phase 1- Spear Street routs/ 0.5 mi Phase II Farm Rd loop/ 0.52 mi Phase III connection from "Spear Street" route to Dorset Farms/ 0.55 mi Total Rae Path Mileage 1.57 The Recreation Path The proposed recreation path will provide recreational opportunities for residents at - JOY South Village and will link to the extensive network of recreation paths throughout South Burlington. The path will navigate through and around the perimeter of the _ 0.9 m villa ge and will provide residents with easy access to it. The layout wilt take advantage of the scenic and natural resources throughout the property and will provide an experiential journey through the surrounding preserved lands. The proposed bike path construction will comply with South Burlington's guidelines and regulations with regard to its surfacing, alignment, width and Signing. The Pedestrian Network/Sidewalks The proposed pedestrian network will provide residents with a safe and convenient way of accessing their community and the area beyond the neighborhoods. It will provide an appropriate a@emative to vehicular usage and allow residents to access areas that are not accessible by car. Front walks will link to a network of 5' wide sidewalks that will make connections to neighboring homes and help to reinforce the sense of community. The sidewalks will also make connections to other alternative travel routes such as he bike path and quiet paths. The Quiet Paths/ 2A mi The proposed quiet paths are located throughout the preserved areas of the site. They are a great amenity to the community linking residents with the surrounding natural landscape. Residents will be able to experience and enjoy the native fauna and flora and the restoration areas and wetlands. The paths, which are to be 4 to 6 feet in width, will be constructed of an environmentally friendly, permeable surface such as gravel or a biodegradable material such as wood chips. This type of walk will provide a soft surface suitable for walking or running. . I I .t� iii All, 0Am— ..:piyye I Connect to sidewalk system Future — Ph.. I E 5 In1 R.—collar s .�. 0.2 ml of Rae Path 0'1-- ( a ul ofdevelopment -- ------���- after Ridge Area and Green o.3 m Street Lots are constructed) C/ty o \ Q gown t sh di- Nil o j n'a n PLANS PREPARED BY: Landiti(s "Middhtwry. '"`"ry'.Vr M,� 0.5]S3 phew: 9023e8 9m h I-802.3a ... IV �nlo,- laldvrorksvtmm 1 1 pRVM DG DRY This plan is for general location aw"°"t° purposes only. Lot layout and DR road locations may change. APPLICANT: LEGEND SOUTH VILLAGE I Increment COMMUNITIES, LLC. 10' Rec Path 4-6' Wide Walking Trail PROJECT CONSULTANrS Sidewalk PLANNER/ARCHITECT LOONEY RICKS KISS I NASHVR.LE, TN I Ex, Vegetation Line CM ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Wetlands SHELBURNE, VT TRAFFIC ENGINEER I TND ENGINEERING NOTES: OSSIPEE, NH 1. Crossing of drainage areas/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT I wetlands via bridge span. LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBLRY, VT 2. Phasing of path system as shown on plans. ENVIROWENTAL PLANNING 3. Final locations to be staked APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES in field and reviewed/ approved BROADHEO, M prior to construction. PROJECT TTRE SOUTH VILLAGE \� I SPEAR STREET AND I ALLEN ROAD I� SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT I � ' � rsm Ib,d III � •� IN.. III End I J a iMt � M* Row .wonh Mtge 0.55 mi.' , _ ttl\ Phase III 0.5 ? r LJ I LOCATION MAP I" . 300c• —0.4m1 a[cx.o rMgl t - e.9.04 0.19.0 Dc DG La)vu[ Layout .. l lie OG Lay.u[ I 2107 DG Scho-Laym-umianwetw& — I 2.17. OG Layout REC PATH, TRAIL NETWORK PLAN JULY, 2004 NTS �— .w. Na 01243 South Burlington Public Works 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05408 TEL: (802)658-7961 FAX: (802)658-7976 101 LANDFU RC Memorandum TO: Development Review Board FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director DATE: September 7, 2004 CC. Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator RE: South Village The following are comments on the latest set of plans dated August 2004. The comments are an addition to my memo dated 11/21/02. Because of all the waivers that are being ask for it is highly recommended that the board ask for review of any waivers by an engineer independent of the developers. We have granted waivers as explained in the memo from 11/21/02. The developer needs to show the city that the waivers for non -curbed streets are for the benefit of storm water treatment. • The intersection of Spear and Allen will be traffic light controlled as a result of this development. The developer shall confirm that the ROW exists for the infrastructure to light the intersection. The city has used most of its ROW on the Northwest and the Southwest of the intersection. There may have to be additional ROW purchased to equip this location and should be dealt with at the beginning of this process. • Project needs to comply with South Burlington Specifications for Construction, except where waiver granted. • 1 would not grant the waiver for AL-26 road if this were the only road frontage for a lot. The city would probably end up owning these roads in the future. If this street is just and alley way behind a property as originally proposed then I have no problem with them. • Hard to tell from plans but the section of road that runs North to South on the East side of the proposed farm land seems to have changed from what was agreed to. • If utilities are to be place in City ROW then they need to be placed as called for by the City Engineer and not by the utilities. There is to be no agreements between the developer and the utilities that have to do with our ROW (no easements). • City sewers need to be run in our ROW in the center of the streets and not through wetlands or back of properties as shown on plans. • All sidewalks are to comply with new ADA rules. Truncated Domes at all ramps. • Checker board grates for catch basins are to be 24" square. • All round covers for manholes on sanitary or storm sewers are to be 26". • All connections for change in direction for under ground pipes, sanitary or storm, except for foundation or sanitary service connections, need to be made in structures. 'i South Burlington Street Department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TES; (802) 658-7961 0MCE W4 LANOFILL. RE 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. South Burlington Fire Department September 2, 2004 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, 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 proposed Master Plan for the South Village project. I have kept most of my comments generalized as each phase of the project will most likely present its own specific issues. Road widths and turning radii should be monitored throughout. 2. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of hoselines, portable ladders and other equipment. Hydrants are generally not an issue as they are situated to comply with the city water regulations. 4. The need for sprinklers and alarm systems will generally follow the Labor and Industry Fire Prevention codes. At this time these are my main concerns. Should you need any further information please feel free to contact me. erely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief i 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 January 13, 2005 Civil Engineering Associates Mr. Dave Marshall P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 RE: South Village Dear Dave: The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the Master Plan for the above referenced project. Although these plans do not show enough detail to offer specific remarks on the water distribution system, I would like to offer the following comments to assist you in future design changes as the review process continues. Please refer also to my previous comments on this project. 1. The attached Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. As your project continues, the Application for Water Allocation will need final approval from this Department, which will be contingent upon available water storage capabilities within the City. Current water distribution system upgrades have been substantially completed that should allow for the construction of your project, pending approval of all other local and State requirements. 2. All construction drawings and plans shall have a note stating the following "All water line and related work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1, and the Village of Jericho, (henceforth the "CWD Specifications.") You have included this note in your current drawings. However, you may remove the last sentence in your note that states "Details should be modified to the above referenced specifications" as that was a note I requested specific only to a former set of plans we reviewed. 3. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly, and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance For The Control Of Cross Connections Within The Water System Of the City Of South Burlin tg_on, henceforth the `Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on backflow protection devices. 4. Looping of all water lines shall be a design requirement. All looping connections shall be at a point so as to eliminate any dead ends on any water main. 5. Eight -inch and larger Ductile Iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new mains shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. DI water pipe shall be Class 52, cement lined. Polyethylene pipe sleeve encasement shall be required for all DI pipe installed for this project. 6. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum of 500' apart. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. All gate valves in this project area shall be made from a corrosion resistant material, and have stainless steel bolts in the valve body. 7. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. Fire hydrant assemblies shall consist of an anchor tee connected directly to a six-inch RW gate valve, the appropriate length of 6" DI pipe, the fire hydrant, and appropriate thrust block. All hydrants shall meet the aforementioned CWD Specifications, and a hydrant flag shall be supplied with each hydrant. Hydrant drains shall have all drains plugged prior to installation. Note: Waterous fire hydrants must be installed with a "Boston Operating Nut." 8. Generally, single-family residences shall have 3/4" K-copper service lines tapped directly into DI pipe six -inches in diameter and larger. A curb stop, concrete block, and Erie box with stainless steel rod shall be installed just inside the right- of-way for each service, per the above referenced CWD Specifications. 9. Fire flow conditions must be able to meet the requirements stated in the CWD Specifications, as well as meeting any conditions set forth by the Fire Department. This project is at the end of end of an area served directly by the South Burlington East (Dorset Street) water storage tank that has recently been raised to a maximum fill level of 555' that should provide sufficient fire flows and pressures to meet the above referenced CWD Specifications. None -the -less, sufficient engineering and design must be performed in order to meet State Water Supply Rule and the above CWD Specification requirements. 10. Normal working pressure in the distribution system for this project shall be designed to produce 60 psi and not less than 35 psi. Further, the CWD Specifications requires all hydrants in a residential development be able to supply no less than 500 gpm. at 20 psi at the worst -case hydrant residual pressure. The developer and his engineer are responsible for ensuring any hydraulic design for this project considers these requirements. The developer and engineer are responsible for all inadequacies in water supply pressure within the project boundaries, for fire and domestic requirements, including those associated with the aforementioned changes. It may be necessary, after your firm reviews hydraulic modeling, to include a booster pump station for this development. 11. No underground utility shall be installed within four feet from the water main on either side, from the top of the main to the finish grade, with the exception of storm sewer and sanitary sewer as stated in the above referenced CWD Specifications. Generally, trees shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 12. Separation between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and the above referenced CWD Specifications. 13. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor must contact this Department to discuss City requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and backflow protection. 14. The SBWD shall be sent any future hard copy plans involving this project for review. Future plans must include details and specifications as required in the above referenced Specifications. 15. The SBWD shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing. 16. Further review changes may be required as this project proceeds through the permit process. 17. A hard copy set of As-Builts as well as one electronic copy in Auto-CAD.DWG Version 14 Format or newer shall be supplied to this department upon completion of the water system improvements. Comments specific to the Master Plan review, on pages S 1.1, C-6.0-6.6, C-9.2 1. Sheet C6.0 a. The future water connection point to Spear Street in the southwest corner shall be removed. b. A future water connection point to Spear Street may be required at the northern entrance to this project, in the future. This connection point will be through a PRV and vault. 2. Sheet C-6.1: a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. d. Water main extensions shall be continuous to the furthest property line of the project. A dead-end water main shall have a hydrant installed at the end of the water main or a temporary blow off for water quality flushing purposes. 3. Sheet C-6.2 a. The proposed eight -inch water main shall not extend to or connect with the Spear street water main. The line shall be removed from future plans at the corner of this subdivision. b. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" c. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. d. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. 4. Sheet C-6.3 a. The proposed 12" water main shall be connected to the Spear Street water main on the west side of Spear Street. A pressure -reducing vault with an approved pressure -reducing valve shall be installed on the proposed water main east of this intersection on the north side of the new road from South Village to Spear Street across from Allen Road, in the green belt. This will require the boring and sleeving under Spear Street for the new water main, and a wet tap on Spear Street on the existing 12" water main. There will also have to be installed a second sleeve of the same size or larger, for a future water line that will connect from the SB Main Service area to this water distribution system. 5. Sheet C-6.4 a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. d. The proposed 12" water main shall not go under the footings of the future bridge, but instead shall go around the north end of the footings while maintaining proper burial depth. 6. Sheet C-6.5 a. The proposed future water main shall not go under the future box culvert, but instead shall go around the north end of the culvert while maintaining proper burial depth. b. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum 500' apart. 7. Sheets 6.6, 9.2 a. Please modify all Water Details to those found in the above referenced CWD Specifications. Specifically, concrete shall not be poured underneath any gate valve. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincerely, hIeau Superintendent CC. Brian Robertson DD. Doug Brent Plan Reviews: South Village -prelim 1-05 7eb CA :!7=5 1 :2C1RN RETROVEST COMPANIES 8or—"\38323 p . 2 t, Wr_1We APPL)l D ECOLC'tialCAL SEFV1 °` S, )NCB 1792f Sa4l7,4 ROAD, P,0. eCX 28e, BROOKFAD, wa $3620 PHONE: (808)091.8$4Y FAX' (0t}8J81;7-8486 email: Info@iipAaiedeco,com �1.y����y� f�f� SPEC:At1S78 WONVIRpWSWAL MAAA©aV Nr,AND FARCN FebnAT 1, 200! Mr, David Schauer Remvm Coampanies 70 South Winot.k Ave, Burlington, Vemant 03401 Re, ReWase to commentary on ecological restoration programs for South VilIagc, South Surb1pon, VT (ABS #01-636) Decor David, The following point by point response to ctarauto.ants raised during recent p1m riing conuniasion me inns for the South Village project. As you no aware we have prepared a series of documents for.tho Sauth'lillsge project as follows, a A Preliminary draft of a "Community Land Ivianagement Plan" a A Review draft of "Restoration and Management Plans and Specificahons" A series of documents, including graphics with existing and proposed ccoiogical ;:oaditions, and at.upporting technical dliGurrtentati®n for the restoration basis. The;ustification for the restoration;)MZ rtr has beon included in tbeso documents. The following resurrects some of the previous information from she project and addresses the questions rowed during the recent mOvings. We underatead titan the consultant from Arrowwood Inviroturtental did not have the opportunity to review the "RoAvration and Management Plans and Spociitcations" submitted in early January, This document further refined the prcliminary draft of a "Community Land Managcrnant Plan" sad tlwrefore some of his comments had already been addressed in the ruore detailed Managern ant Plan but for clarity we have outlined our specific responses herein, 1, Grano Swamp Restoration Intentions, Our field review of the margin of the G=at swamp on the South Village pToperty revulyd the invasion by two exoto plant species to be occutzinS: the Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinancea) and glossy buckthorn (Rhaurmus €ruguia). The only ,restoration work we anticipato doing within tho GTftt Swarnp margins in the South Village property would bo to halt the invasion and population rowth threat by these epecies by very specific "individual plant targeted" offorts m pull, cut, and stmmp treat with a wick eb 04 20OS 11:20RM - F RETRCVEST GOMPRNIES so- '),38323 p.3 r L fJJ j!t 64 9e(-1r'-L. I G„i m1_J_Jls. i_w� _ �WJ�y= ! :HAS❑ 1 Q CbJ l applicator (if necessary) with the herbicide Glyphmphate. Vie details of the procedures am doc=eateci in the 'Restoration and 1,vf$nagerrlen,t Plans and Specifications" document for the prof Oct. >. Savanism, and the tnry of Fire iu zee Champlain Basin, Clan plains: bi our ieohnieah surrunary report an acologicah mntext, we provided several key tmetuucal refererces, which docuftnent a long Stara ins native American -use of fire in the Champlain basin and many other arcas east and south. A locoi cited document summarizes the regional prevalence of fire adapted pler:t species including bar Oak, shagbark hickory aid others, In our experionae these species ocourred in locations with historiz~ open spaced canopy trees developed in a meadow setting, a contit:on we and others have characterized in the technical literatwe as a "savanna'. The language over whether to call sites savannas, +open forests, box=, glades or numerous other term is something that can be discussed withvAt. resolve. What's more important in our opinion in South Village is to use ad perhaps End a consistent language for referencing these forests. The regional languaga refers to these forests as "oak -hickory forest®, which was the aunt terminology throughout much of the US, at least until research we and others conducted in the► mid-19$0's brought Snater dednitton and understandings of these systems. We (Haney and Apfe t= 1990) defined the clsss:fiestion tot these forest types based on 15 years of studies, including fire ecological invcstigatians, in those systevis. (>z clossiAcatin Is generally consistent with others stach as The Nature Cotwomanacy's National :lamelAcation. My uinderstaading is there has been local discussion about the historic role of fire in these forests types on the clay plains around Lake Champlain (Capean, personal communications). It is also our understanding that key regional experts on the mani4iment of these Forest types rccognixo that they are best ragenerated with use of prescribed Are in other parts of the US and that they have hoknawledged this lvstoric role for dry and wet oak hickory forests in'the Champlain Clay plains, As principle researchers of thA ecosyact~m type, throughout the US and in Cxu" we Nava cowlusively docurnanted the regular fire history and use of fire management to regenemle and manage such forests with virtually identical wee, sapling, shrub and g;rcL rd story cosMosition and structure as to what is found in the Champlain Clay Plaina. Uncgu ivocally, .Fire has played a very important Tole over hundreds of miiliotts of acres of these similar forests in similar soils in the US said Canada, ]n suttrcaW, the Clay Plain Forests have been recognized as unique in Vermont, and partly as aresult of this, Vermont naeural rmsource experts bave been ta-ving to understand the :nenagernent and pretectiott steeds of these forests. In the naidwestem US, starting in he I990's, we experienced the wine process of research and debate an Lhc managernerl needs o(vory similar &Tesm We learned that their history was largely awbropogenie, being created and maintained by indigenous peoples through thr. use of f e, We also learned that most plants and mitrials in these svetems were fee adapted and in fact mazy -eb 04 2005 . 1 20AM _ RETROYE T C-"Mi°AN I EB 80--r 383c3 b�('!4Mb -V i �Wb.S.� v Nor acne pritnariiy regenerated with fire. Over Wo Arcades of research smd'.eW and derrionstration proiects on the management ci :lacier fcrests hu confirmad Pho tnmugement-use of fire as an essential clement to maintain the bioiagicai diversity; str'w=e and crmtposition ofvagetatku and wildlife "Mmurities in These forests, Aased on our review oathese Vermont fbTms, we are confident our understandings !ivin Lhem and ocean oak -hickory to eats apply to w.a clay plain forests around Lakc Champlain. 3. Use of Native l3udigenous Plant Specks,, While we apprtdate commeriury about the details on which plant species could be used in rretoring, native iandscapoa at South Village, it must also be understood that the documentation and included species lists prepared to date were intended to provide for a discussion with local exports bn the species mixes, not 10 provide definitive 116tings. .A.rad, per the intentions of the draft and review ddcurrimts, we have received and will updr.e the species hating9 ibr the various restoration conies included in 040 South Village Project Because most prwpla In the Burlington area bane little to no =perienoe with restoration I;rojw% their stt"acture, fan-ut, process and iutitions, our goal was to providt aw comer oniy'used document stru.ctwre in the abcve reports to Ii nply'start the process of ref nameni in the details of the species mixes and quantities. Of course, aven the listirp will treed subsequent refinement as local genotype seeds and plants form sty species are not available commemially and will have to be collectod and grown for the South Village � jest. We have received a tactmim review iy rirt Oi:Tran with Wiltiarm .D. Countryman Company with numerous .suggested species changes as open of the refiAement nrtripaird and request:d of local experts. Act changes will be included in updated vstrstons for the raferencaa'reparts andplans, 4. Prescrfbed Burain`. Pvidence frma the Champlain Basin. Clay plains for a history of fira in nw►my local ecological systems suggests clearly that recent land use wid oxupsncy :nas Oliminated the historic role of fire as a etsgetutring element ir. these ecological systems. "Thane are other areas of Vormont with runictai or little historic evidace of regular recurring fire and ttais haste docum*nW by archeeologiats. fiowyvez, Ma technical referomes webave reviewed suggest the eor:trary history for the Clay Plains around Lake Charnpluin, especially in locations with kwwn Native Aseriean settlements. Our goal is to irtroctuae fire as an intexmitten-, in&equently used management to of to Paver ccologicat diversification, Fuel load reduction, nutrient cycling, seed -bank stimulation aid response, &ad the nusnamus Queer benefits of fire. A; stand during The South Burlington fl:sign Rzsicw Board meeting I attended. a sire rotation of 3.5 years is anticipated and. the 'bun unite would be designed is coordinate Feb 04 21 ,CS !I i 2ORM RETROVEST COMPANIES 801- �38323 '( ^k� s`18:5 �4>l� �k I-INI'Likt! �wULUUiI,i�� !.. l9IQcSttl�;'J-�#CO tU i� kFb.#1.3,J4 P. P . +U7rJ I with lttiartsri ba sith gad safety, wind Irectior, w,,d speed, and ail t}*Cal comwgercies associated with prescribed butting Why would to layed out in fort W b-zn plans nor City Firc Depa.rtntenr review and Vprovai, peeve y bt?taiixsg Ong dortd>ictod, 3. Restoration Impact on atisby ;areas (egg.'Woodcock) and gvkor Alldllfe: The rostoratiou plan emphuim and ertcouza4m the dcvciop=cnt of diverse native plain and anirnail communities in the South Village project property, Although bni h areas will decr+eaw in "The R.idgea" loca;oon, we intend to create additiorml Areas in the margirw of the central wetland in the property e,,g. by platting vahous =ive &roue willows, dogwoods, oto) and zvplaco invasiva buckWQr t gro�rhs with native ahrabs, ne outcome of the South Village restoration plan will be the improvement of misting detmiorazed habitats, addition of newly restomd habitats, arA iiWdi3g ofmost if not all habitats in An open spaoe syetesn. 1h other projects where we 'have undertaken simile rcstorations. the native plant and wildlife diversity has increased. Please tot tree know of ether cone and thoughts that may arise during the heantag and regulatory approve; ?Mce!ss. yours SiKen 1. Apfelbaum Certificd Senior Ecologist Ecological Society of America zraknule coiltetian of Ud; ui sMd Cited Reftwences ,A,Ngren, LF. and C.B. Migren 1 �60 Ecological effects of Forest Fire, Satanical Rev. 26, 493-533 ApielbaurA, 5.1, 1985. Carm l (Typha spp.) =,nageanem! Macaw Areas Jou.n, !;5;:�-17. Apfelbaum, S- I. and A Hansy'}. 1995 C+bangcs In bud papuladom dunng nicceseicn t616%iag fire in the aorthem Grem .4 kes `Wilderne.As; pp 10-M In. frocae-&V bt t6e ?WAtions.1 Tee zuss R.esessch conierznce; Ct=zt Resesash. 5messl 'echnical Report INT-212 1:�S, Depum wt ofri&utmn, Forest Semis. ntermoui.tLid Rze#*8]xh Station. >53 ?p. Apfaksum,, 5. sad C. S=s 19e7 ZcoioU and c:, ugermcnt of seed c2nwr pus y atis �#71g�r}® i,,�, i��rils2l �i.:e:Y9l9VSfls� �wi�:�g•��'. Apio'ba=, 5, 1, 1993 T`ae Me cf , in dscspes its Stormwater Air %Sener.t. Nadonsk . web 04 2SO5 ' 1 . 2IRM 4 RETROVEST COMPANIES aC 3(i323 p. S ^tz 1M; 1= rN nf"'!-1t.. Mt-UL.JUI L-M1. ! 7C�rb4bb 1V t >�oa.; IJJe e i�aneesncs os: 'urban Rucoff �4s�aag�amaaa;. E:sfi�dt'.g i;ttrahs Ala:ersined "Air Alement at the :vocal, Counry, and 5ta*x Levea, Ca icago, Mincis, Mai& l99?, SEPA. confetence. Pp:1o5.169 .gyp%ibaaYn,). D. l✓;ogich, T. H. P=icz. as d.V1, iar.sis 1, The PraiZic Crasaitag Pro?tscc: Atralning Water Quality and Stcmatsaater M*nagecnert Gams in a Conservation Deve1cpruent, Using Etelogieal Rezv=steraa m sneer Clun Water Pict G04s. Nsnaml STmposium on Usg Eco«4tal R4storation m Meet Clean Water Acr ^osls CWcaga, i>I'sncis. �vfaxch 14.166% 1995. USE?A CorAdenc PP: 33.35. Apf4'oawu, S.1. and K, Chzpman 1997 Ecological ResetraMiM A P=CiCAI Approach. Ecosystem Manageanent Applicstiom for SustainsilAar Forest and Wildiife Resousces, Yale University, Phi; 301-322 Apfcibauta.:. ,., M. Saud:, T, H. Price, j, D. Eppich, R M. Hoffhnaw, sAd D. Hoff rime 1997. Oa ctmaesri= dcvelopmanu and their 4omuiahyve brnnflu, In:..AVx 4g ;de Offmlf SAW Joao r sj 12M Zgaa ti r mv.ryO r; os d woor A 1Vadoxal S:ywjmAxw. U.S, Envhronmentai Prow-;twn Agency and Northeutem Vinci, P1An.'=gCcosnsua3ia1L Horeb 19-21, 096. Pp. 181-187 Capcn, D. E. 2004. South Village 'wildlife aeaesatnent, UuptiD4hed reporr TubnUmd to RetmVest Compataies. 9pp. zhamplaan Vs ey Clappl= Foseat P,ro)act :0C l c:kiaaasplain Vallay C1&7P1 isi Forest, natural 3diswry Arid Stewsrds6p. 18 ppe, w% w eixygiain-uxg Cxonzn, W. 1985 Ckhang% in dw L=d, ladians, colorists, and the ecology u4 Ne7 1rIIgianG. Kill and Win&, New Yvrk, NY, 235 ppn. Clow; T T, A. Haney and D. M. LrJ'allet 1994 li.epott an :he Sdened= Ro=dmble on Biological diversity Convaned by the Chequamepn ind Nicolet Natw al Fwasts. USDA, Forest $ervite, North Centsai Foiest Expeazment Sutton, Gear --al Technical Report IBC-166 Haney, A, and SDI. Apfelbatatss. 1990. strwuus and dyrA mcs o1'Mtdwesr cak savannas. m, J,.M. Seetwy (td ,, lvi=gtment of Dr.u= Ecosystems: Ncr-1 Ccnt--xl. Section, The wiwlife Soarty, Wear U ayatte, 1rdia.na. Haney, A. mid 5.1 Apieibaurn. 1994. Measuthtg changes in ask aavinaas; a remew and reaommondations fox x aacrutcri g pv=col. In, J.S, F''Wish,. R.C. Anderson, j,8. Bbingea, and R. Szsfasu (ads.), Ptoceedings of she North Aturw n Confemocs on Biatns ind Savants. Us S. Eavixonmeliml Psotseeion Agency. Great Lakts National Prag=m Office, Chicuga, Tllinoia. Pp, 353-'S7. Ludwi& ).P , and S.1. Apfelbtum r fnp"fisbad data 1976-1992: 'Vegetation, Brach lvlamcna and B,srd RAspouse to Minded Lassa ,Xrclamjks on at the jaickson Canary Iron Feb 04 2005 11;22r3M R^ETROYE5T COMPANIES 60' j38323 po , rce � ' V= 112+117 rk It M(-ULUuI_10,_ t1� rV4Wj V 14 ZdbjI3: = d, *mp=7a Black hives Falls,'K,- Annual Technical r®nores to Wiscomm uVa;uzw.t ai Namrsi %cacurces. Madison, —1. �!111nr. ]. In press Conservation DeR-elopmcars and Consambou, Jaumal oFC0n5w-=Qn Biokgy, Wilcox, S.A. $1, Apfc1bauta, sand RD. H.,eberr. 1985 Cattail invasion of sedge me4dows. followinghydtaiagac a36mloance = L4e Crowles BogWerland Complex, InAgts Dunn Natt=) Lakethete. Ted Inds 14),115.129. ** TO"AL PAGE.201 *- 1 - - / Impervious Area Summary - - EPqEPABY: -. .-.- - 226.8 Acreage ofPro� 20% Maximum Building Coverage - - 45.36 Maximum Building Acreage Allowed _ - - 10.0 Phase 1 Magnum Building Coverage Acreage A15.0 Phase 2 Ma:dmmn Building Coverage Acreage 15.0Phase 3 Maximum Building Coverage Acreage S.0Phase 4 Maximum Building Coverage Acreage G ASSOCIATES, INC.226.8 Acreage of Property;,'a40% Maximum Lot Coverage ...1 v - ._..,:90.72 Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage Allowed NORTH ENTRANCE 20.0 Phase l Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage aN ' ' ' ' 10.0 Phase 2 Maximum Lot Coverage AWY VTE SUMMARY erege Acreage ,..." -.. , 1 30.0 Phase 4 Maximum Lot Coverage 1088 AADT ..... ... ( e:ag°Acreage r , 73 AM PEAK AGRICULTURAL y _ DSM OPEN SPACE 85 PM PEAK/ I NOT DEPENDENT ON ........' APPROVE:a PHASING DSM ts.e ACRES(_..... ::.::.�•'• .:.:." I APPLICANT: ISOUTH VILLAGE — - — tIlt GE `'.'. I COMMUNITIES, LLC. y ( ► .............. I....'. , ,'- AXUUM r PROJECT CONSULTANTS: MAIN ENTRANCE _ OPEN SPACE .... I LAA4ousE A�2 T VTE SUMMARY ..'. 1.'.". , .. , _ . WITH RESTORATION AND AGRICULTURAL WALKWAY €MPROVEMENTS I LOONEY RICKS KISS 173A AADT Q OPEN SPACE ... :011.e ACRES NASHVILLE, TN 137 AM PEAK NOT DEPENDENT ON :.:.1 .:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... I 137 PM PEAK PHASING : avnvaE �17.9 ACRES .. ..... . ( CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOC/ATES - Q SHELBURNE, VT =.m TN I • -- D ENGINEERING O —.... --- FUTURE 100 ......... . I _ ❑ f T "'�"►... a STUDENT .. ... ... SCHOOL 577E LANDlS1C1AE ARCN/JIeC .. .. ',1; ui..;. s .:.:.'._.'._..... :.. ..�+`:LAND WORKS O ........... 1 -- --_ O PROJECT TITLE: - SOUTH `TILLAGE AGRICULTURAL sand Da•1rn eu°• ve:mone OPEN SPACE, No Beromrr a 1 ......... ... , • . Rome *LQACRES VI G 1 SPEAR STREET AND EAST ENTRANCE ALLEN ROAD VTE SUMMARY SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT Ise Ts ,:1,a. _ :: : • 1699 AADT I ' PEAK SOUTH ENTRANCE I 16 PM PEAK --- VTE SUMMARY r _ 940 AADT 59 AM PEAK �... ? 1 , [�' --�. -- 67 PM PEAK I 0 A �� \ ' WITH RIiSTORA ' tiAli 1Wi 'I ❑ \ E — ex �\ - C 1 — - ity '`—_ � a �----'r— _ 1 DAB �D ,ter, �1 � I ( Of R�TORA AND �T DSM RVASED COT uroUis r rl NO TOE\_ SO 0 .EN SPA ' _ a I / D PROPOSED � T h Of S� �4+/� 1 I __ ENS[D LOT tA10i ROAD ALIGNMENT !`h .•,,,( t�-P}er DSM P tBALK �ReLlF71 _ � �' 1 e1faH O — — — — =1z1 Aa¢s — — I MASTER i --' - --- \� , . `• --- PLAN PHASING GRAPHIC SCALE- sW DATE DRAWING NUMBER JUNE, 2004 I IN ` SCALE 1 1 Ac0 a E00 ft I - \a nay. No. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 15, 2005 Mr. Michael Adams US Army Corps of Engineers 8 Carmichael Street Essex, Vermont 05451 RE: South Village Project City of South Burlington, Vermont Dear Mike, The City of South Burlington is responding to your request, through the applicant South Village Companies, LLC, for documentation of municipal policies regarding the roadway and recreation path system and wetland impacts associated with the "South Village" residential project. Much of this letter will sound very familiar to you after our discussions concerning the "Heatherfields" project. This letter reiterates many of the same City policies regarding connector roads and recreation paths, and also discusses the alternatives considered and waivers granted to minimize wetland impacts in the South Village project. I have also specifically discussed the public need and requirement for the connector loop at the south end of Phase I ("The Village"). City Requirement for 'Through -Road Connection between Dorset Street and Spear Street; Acceptability of Alternative Designs As we have discussed before, the City of South Burlington's Land Development Regulations universally and unequivocally require connected through -roads between major north -south collector roadways for all development projects. South Village, with a total of 337 housing units approved, certainly falls into this class of projects. A cul-de-sac, or any other option short of a full through road for two-way traffic, with a fully connected recreation path, is completely unacceptable for a large number of traffic, public service, and planning reasons. Mr. Mike Adams March 15, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Creating a network of connected through roads ensures that South Burlington will not end up a community of dead-end, isolated neighborhoods. The City's population is expected to grow by roughly 1,000 residents per year over the next ten years. Anticipating that growth now, and requiring roadway connections to serve it, will reduce ambulance, fire and police response times as the City grows. For this reason, connected through -roads sufficient for two lanes of vehicular travel are required by the City's Fire Chief as part of the development review process. School transportation also is greatly facilitated, and route times are reduced, when roads through new developments are appropriately connected to collector roadways (i.e. Dorset and Spear Streets). Through road connections also reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) by residents, who are not forced to travel north or south to get to locations east of Dorset Street — including Williston, where many South Burlington residents now work. Modeling by the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization consistently demonstrates a reduction in VMTs when through roads and connections between neighborhoods are built, and unnecessary increases in VMTs when communities fail to require these connections. And, again, the failure to connect streets between neighborhoods is known to exacerbate social and economic fragmentation. This has been documented in a number of studies by the American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service and other publications. Creating pods of housing on dead-end road networks is absolutely contrary to South Burlington's efforts to create a strong sense of community. Alternative roadway alignments that were considered and why they were eliminated In the course of the development review process for the South Village proposal, which began in October, 2002, the City has considered many, many different roadway alignments, as well as many different building layouts and setback arrangements. The applicant's proposal is for a Traditional Neighborhood Design or "TND" concept which, unlike most standard subdivisions, features a very tight network of narrow streets and closely clustered house lots. The City then had to reconcile the applicant's plan for narrow, compact streets with public utility and safety considerations, such as the required area for fire trucks and minimum areas for utilities. Both the City and the applicant also carefully considered. the impact of different alignments on wetlands and wildlife habitat areas. The chosen alignments and roadway widths, arrived at after much discussion among City department heads, the applicant, and the Development Review Board, best satisfy these environmental, social, design, and public safety concerns. The chosen alignments, roadway locations, and widths are the minimum necessary for fire Mr: Mike Adams March 15, 2005 Page 3 0.f 5 protection, school transportation, and public utilities, and have the least impact on wetlands and wildlife connections. The Staff of the Development Review Board truly believe that all possible design and planning measures to minimize wetland impacts, including alternative road evaluations and setback and pavement width waivers, have been considered in the design process for this property. Two specific issues — waivers granted to reduce overall roadway surface area, and necessary impacts for wetland crossings — are discussed in more detail below. Roadway Waivers to Reduce Wetland Impacts and Achieve TND Design Goals: This project was granted a set of significant waivers of the City's roadway width standards that substantially reduce the total area of roadway surface within the project. This resulted in a roadway network that promotes TND design goals, while minimizing wetland and wildlife habitat impacts. The City's Development Review Board approved many waivers that have reduced the wetland impacts of the roadways and buildings on this property. It is worth noting that the waivers for roadway width at wetland crossings are the largest roadway width waivers the City has ever granted. Roadway Design Standard Required Approved Pavement width, collector street at wetland crossings 30' 20' Pavement width, Collector street with parking on one side 30' 28' Pavement width, collector street with no parking 30' 26' Pavement width, local street at wetland crossings 28' 20' Pavement width, local street with parking on one side 28' 26' Pavement width, local street with no parking 28' 24' Minimum tangent length between curves, collector streets 150' 50' Minimum tangent length between curves, local streets 100' 50' Minimum radius of curves, collector streets, 30 mph posted 500' 300' Minimum radius of curves, collector streets, 25 mph posted 500' 18o' South Burlington Development Review Board Decision, March 10, 2005 Mr. _Mike Adains March 15, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Necessary Impacts on Wetlands at Roadway Crossings: There are three wetland crossings involved in the approved roadway network of South Village. Two of the proposed roadway crossings of the wetlands are associated with the "L" Street Connector between Allen Road/Spear Street and Dorset Street. The City's absolute requirement for this roadway connection has been described above. Again, reducing the required pavement width from 30' to only 20' at crossing points represents a significant effort by the applicant and the City to reduce the wetland impacts of this necessary road connection. The third wetland crossing occurs on the "D" Street's southern most connector between "L" Street and Spear Street. As discussed above, the TND design approved in this project creates a compact neighborhood with a very tightly designed street system that reduces overall wetland impacts. Another key benefit of a TND design is the creation of multiple, inter -connected travel paths between homes, neighborhoods and other streets, instead of the (very damaging) conventional pattern of collecting a neighborhood's traffic and depositing it in one location on a high -volume roadway. In this one case, a connector roadway essential to the overall TND design, traffic pattern, and City objectives must cross a wetland. The "D" Street southern connector represents an important component of these goals which are discussed in more detail in Rick Chelman's February 9th letter. The City fully supports the position that this roadway in this location is essential to the overall function of the project. Again, the roadway width at the crossing has been reduced from the usual standard of 30' to 20' in order to minimize the impact while still keeping the road where it needs to be. Effects of reducing the width of the recreational paths or eliminating the paths As you and I discussed regarding the Heatherfields project, South Burlington is extremely proud of its 17+ miles of recreation path — the largest network in Vermont. While there are wetland crossings throughout the path network, the City's recreation paths increase social integration and non -vehicular travel options, and provide a significant community amenity. Reduced recreation paths provide less mobility, reduce the appeal of non -vehicular travel, and provide a reduced community amenity. Because this recreation path is not in the heavily -used City Center area, as was the case with Heatherfields, the City's Recreation Path Committee and the Development Review Board have approved an 8' width (reduced from the standard 1o') where the path crosses wetlands, and a standard clear distance of 5' between the edge of road and the path (reduced from the standard of 8'). These waivers are intended to reduce the wetland impact of the path without compromising its public use. Mr. Mike Adams March 15, 2005 Page 5 Rf 5 Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. If I can answer any further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, �Juli Beth Hinds, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning cc: Dave Marshall, CEA April Moulaert, VANR David Scheuer, SVC, LLC File CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 15, 2005 David Scheuer The Retrovest Companies 70 South Winooski Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Findings of Fact — #MP-04-01 Dear Mr. Kennedy: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on March 10, 2005 (effective 3/10/05). If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough, Ad inistrative Assistant Encl. SOU'UH BtJRI,IN(.7'ON RI (:REATION DEPARTMENT 575 1JORSE C' S RF:ET. SOUTH BURIANGFON, VT 05403 TFL: (802) 946-4108 • FAX: (802) 546A 101 I WAI. ." Ill lilt;W). (TRI' TO: Ray Belair, Brian Robertson FROM: Tom Hubbard, Recreation Director RE: South Village Master plan DATE: February 10, 2005 The Recreation Path Committee was pleased with the Findings of Fact- Draft Report of the South Village Master plan, as it was reviewed at the RPC meeting last evening. In particular, the committee acknowledged the DRB support of the original recommendation from the Recreation Path Committee to complete the recreation path from Spear St. to Dorset Farms as part of Phase I of the development. Dave Marshall has worked closely with the committee in terms of design and location, and to have this east -west connection become a reality is exciting. There is still some question with the committee in regard to the walking trails proposed as part of Phase III. The committee certainly supports the position of having these trails remain open to the public, and not closed -off for private use. This might mean that the walking trails would become public property just like the rec. path, streets, sewers, etc. The committee would like to be involved in these discussions at the appropriate time. If inclusive language is needed for the draft in this regard, the committee would be willing to forward a recommendation to the DRB for consideration. CIVIL t"JIN 1G!! IEt";tll Ir AI"" rIr"Vr 928 Falls Road Phone: 802-985-2323 P.O. Box 485 Fax: 802-985-2271 Shelburne, VT 05482 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com February 8, 2005 Ms. April Moulaert, Environmental Scientist DEC Water Quality Division 10 North 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 Re: South Village Conditional Use Determination Application South Burlington, Vermont Dear Ms. Moulaert: Please find enclosed one copy of the bound application, supporting documents and application fee in the amount of $4,839.00 for a Conditional Use Application for the proposed South Village project located off of Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. Mr. Art Gilman who completed the wetland delineation work (with supporting revisions by Pioneer Environmental) will be the primary contact for this application. However if you should have any questions on the design issues, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Once you notify us that the application is complete, pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Vermont Wetland Rules, we will file complete copies of the CUD application with the City of South Burlington Town Clerk, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and the South Burlington Planning office. Respectful) David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Enclosures Conditional Use Determination Application Booklet, Check # 1094 cc: A. Gilman, M. Holgate, B. Robertson (all with enclosures) CAILcAO1243XMasterlwetlandclmoulaert.wpd Pagel of 3 Jon Dietrich - RE: South Village From: "Dave Marshall" <dmarshall@cea-vt.com> To: "'Dave Marshall"' <drrshall@cea-vt.com>, <TDietric@fando.com> Date: 2/2/2005 8:54:16 AM Subject: RE: South Village CC: "'Rick Chellman"' <chellman@worldpath.net>, "'Mh@Retrovest. Com"' <mh@retrovest.com>, "'David"' <ds@retrovest.com> Jon - Here is a progress plan showing the interrelationship of the proposed streets and on - street parking program. The signage was an issue in order to make the program work, therefore we have included the parking signing. This plan will ultimately be expanded to include stop signs, street signs, warning signs, etc. David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 928 Falls Road, PO Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482-0485 P 802-985-2323 F 802-985-2271 dmarshall@cea-vt.com -----Original Message ----- From: Dave Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea-vt.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 5:07 PM To: 'JDietric@fando.com' Cc: 'Rick Chellman'; 'Mh@Retrovest. Corn'; 'David' Subject: RE: South Village Jon - Regarding Item 2b - specific detail /locations of the intersections where waivers from the centerline offset standard are requested; We offer the following list for your review which will be formally submitted to you: C Street to D Street Along F Street - 145' ,i G Street to C Street Along F Street - 150' G Street to B Street Along F Street - 145' Common Lane (South) to E Street Along E Street - 60' v Common Lane (South) to E Street Along D treet - 86' ✓Common Lane (North) to A Street Along K treet - 50' C Common Lane (North) to A Street Along B Street - 190' Regarding Item 2e - removal of some on -street parking near intersections and entrance roadways CEA is preparing a plan that shows the revised on -street parking coupled with the proposed signing plan. We hope to send this out on Tuesday Night as a .pdf for you to review. David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 928 Falls Road, PO Box 485 file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jond\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 2/2/2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 2005 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 February 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, L. Kupferman, G. Quimby, C. Bolton, R. Farley, M. Kupersmith Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; B. Hoar, Public Works Department; D. Marshall, R. Chellman, M. Hall, K. Donahue, S. & M. Hill, J. Dietrich, D. Cummings, D. Scheuer, J. Anderson, M. Cypes, D. Wetzel, B. Terhune, F. Smith, O. Finenkov, Mr. & Mrs. W. Degroot, A. Netzel, A. Bianchi, P. DiStefano, B. Cimonetti, L. Bresee, K. Lange, M. Holgate, W. Reichard, J. Greene; A. Parent, The Other Paper 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Continued Public Hearing: Master Plan Application 4MP-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-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: Mr. Marshall noted that the issues remaining to be addressed include: a. Wildlife issues to be clarified (information on this was submitted to staff) b. CUD application with the State of Vermont (this has been submitted and staff has copies) c. Traffic (the City hired John Dietrich to review Rick Chellman's traffic study). Mr. Chellman said he has analyzed this project twice, once 2 years ago before changes were made and then more recently. With regard to directional distribution, Mr. Chellman estimated that 95% would go to Spear Street and only 5% onto Midland Avenue. The amount of traffic at the main entrance meets two warrants for a traffic signal. This signal will create breaks in traffic for others along the road. The other access meets the warrants for a southbound left turn lane. The applicant would -1- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 2005 like not to have to put this in at first but would monitor the situation to see if the turn lane was needed. Midland Avenue has been designed so as not to be a "speedway" connection. Mr. Chellman said it didn't make sense to construct this road at the beginning of the project. Most nearby intersections would operate at level of service (LOS) "C" or "D," with some at LOS "F." Mr. Chellman then showed a traffic simulation of what the situation would look like at Spear Street and South Dr. Mr. Donahue said if they didn't have a turn lane at Pinnacle, there would be traffic backed up. He said the traffic simulation doesn't show anyone having to wait to turn left into the development. Mr. Donahue felt the situation would be terrible without a turn lane. Mr. Chellman said the signalized intersection takes the pressure off the other intersections where people are turning. Mr. Marshall added that the signalized intersection creates openings you don't have now because currently as soon as there is an opening, someone goes out to fill it. Mr. Donahue said he still thinks a turn lane is needed right away because you will get the turning cars off Spear Street quicker, before they can impact another intersection. Mr. Kupferman asked what kind of study was done for 2013, since the project probably won't be built out by 2008. Mr. Hill noted that in Durham, New Hampshire, they used the same model and didn't put in a turn lane. Accidents were down because people went to the signalized intersection to make turns instead of taking risks., Mr. Cummings said he lives across the road from the proposed project and would like to "wait and see" before tearing up Spear Street. Mr. Dietrich said he didn't get a full copy of the amended report, but he has seen the proposed changes. He said the main area on which he differs with the applicant's study is the question of unsignalized intersections. He had no problem with postponing the turn lanes, but felt there should be a mechanism for putting them in. The applicant said they were comfortable with that. Mr. Bolton asked Mr. Dietrich if he felt safety depends on the turn lane. Mr. Dietrich said the standard for the turn lane is met which means you should consider some sort of left turn mitigation. It doesn't mean you have to put it in. Mr. Belair noted that Mr. Dietrich also looked at waiver requests and has a recommendation regarding them. -2- K I P�. I 14, Mr. Anderson asked what Mr. Chellman felt would be the total traffic using Midland. Mr. Chellman said the numbers are very small, 5% or 12-18 vehicles in the peak hour both ways. He felt that until the "Ridge" project was built, there would be no need to extend Midland Avenue. Mr. Cypes asked if the directional distribution was estimated on a weekday -only basis. Mr. Chellman said it was. No weekend analysis was done. Mr. Cypes asked if the trip generation took into consideration traffic from Shelburne Road. Mr. Chellman said Shelburne Rd/Allen Rd were part of the study and through traffic volumes were very low. Mr. Donahue asked why there is no arterial road to get from Spear to Dorset to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Marshall said they are committed to that. Mr. Donahue asked about the time frame. Mr. Marshall said 7-10 years. Mr. Donahue replied that it was needed 10 years ago. Mr. Wetzel noted the east -west road study did not include Midland Avenue. The MPO also doesn't feel there is enough traffic volume to warrant a connector there. Mr. Kupferman asked what the City Council decided at its meeting last night regarding Midland Avenue. Mr. Boucher read the proposed stipulation which was the Council's request. It indicated that Midland Avenue should be connected at the onset of Phase 2 (Fields Edge) and should be completed before the issuance of the first wastewater permit for a dwelling unit in Phase 2. Mr. Robertson added that the developer would pay for the road. Mr. Scheuer said there had been an agreement with staff regarding timing. Then last night the City Council interjected itself into the discussion. Mr. Scheuer felt there is no evidence that road is necessary because of the impact of this project. There also is no written city policy regarding phasing. Mr. Scheuer stressed that they have never asked for financial assistance for the construction of the road and are willing and able to build it as part of the phasing plan for the project. He felt that it was unfair and wasteful to accelerate the building of the road. Mr. Hall said the City Council does not have the right to direct the DRB in its decisions. He also felt there is no reason written in the Zoning Ordinance to require this acceleration. Mr. Scheuer said they are willing to escrow the cost of the portion of the road with no housing on it. Mr. Marshall said they also agree that when that part of Midland gets built, the bike path should be included. Mr. Cypes said he felt the reason for building the road —that it's been in the plan for 40 years —is invalid. Mr. Robertson said the map was updated a year ago, and the road was left it. -3- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD g FEBRUARY 2005 Mr. Marshall suggested using the wastewater permit as a timing standard instead of occupancy. Ms. Kupersmith stressed that the City Council does not dictate to the DRB; nevertheless, she was uncomfortable with the situation. Mr. Bresee said he felt the public can be served by building the road as soon as possible. Members next considered issues regarding street engineering. Mr. Boucher asked Mr. Hoar for comments regarding the waivers that have been requested. Mr. Hoar said he has worked on issues of this project for a long time. He is OK with some waivers based on the "neighborhood" concept. There should be no waivers for rights -of -way. There are waivers for road widths. Midland Avenue must be permitted for the widest width so the city can go in and build the road to city standards, if necessary. Roads have to be built for 25 mph speeds. That is the lowest allowed in the State. Mr. Hoar said he is a proponent of traffic calming. He felt that what the applicant is proposing in that regard is good and will slow things down. No problems are anticipated for snow plows. Chief Brent then said the applicant has been very responsive to issues. He stressed that he has to consider the worst case scenarios. Sometimes, what works on paper and on a computer screen doesn't work in the "real world." He said he needs to know if a fire truck can really get around a corner, and he needs to ability to correct something if it doesn't work. Mr. Marshall said they are OK with that. Mr. Robertson said the Chief will be involved in latter phases of the project. Mr. Marshall noted that a number of the waivers they are requesting will result in bringing speeds down to a neighborhood level. There will be no parking at intersections, so emergency vehicles can get through. They will also do a check with "real life" conditions. Mr. Donahue said they should find a similar neighborhood and drive fire trucks around in it. He also asked who has to pay if the road has to be widened. Members then reviewed information regarding ecological restoration. Mr. Boucher noted receipt of a letter from the applicant answering questions raised at the last review of this project. Mr. Marshall noted that a lot of the comments had already been addressed in a. larger document that Mr. Vallee's people had not been able to review. Mr. Kupferman asked Chief Brent's position on the proposed "burning." Chief Brent said he didn't feel something at the scale indicated could be authorized by State regulations. He added there would have to be a lot of "built-in" protection, and someone would have to be hired to stand by for safety. Mr. Boucher asked staff to work with the Chief on this and to make a recommendation to the DRB that snakes sense. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 2005 Members then discussed requests for other waivers. Mr. Marshall said waiver requests reflect the neighborhood design: buildings closer to the street, etc. There are no waivers where there are safety concerns. Mr. Wetzel noted a lot of people in Dorset Fanns think highly of this project and don't think it should be stopped because of the issue of phasing the road. He felt they could wind up with something much worse than this project. Members then discussed whether to close the public hearing. Ms. Kupersmith favored keeping it open. She was not clear on the affect of the City Council's position on the road. Mr. Kupferman, Ms. Quimby and Mr. Farley were OK with closing the hearing. Mr. Bolton asked if there was any "common ground" between the applicant's position and the city's position on the road. Mr. Scheuer said he thought there was room for consensus. He felt it would be OK to build the road at the end of Phase 2, not the beginning. It is a $2,000,000 issue. He felt there could be an agreement reached. Ms. Hinds said there is ample room for two processes to go on. The DRB must decide whether it has enough information to apply the city's by-laws to this application. Issues related to timing, surety, etc., can be worked out with the City Council. Mr. Cummings raised a question of how the bike path would be put in on Spear St. Mr. Bresee said he thought Mr. Cummings would be pleased with what is being discussed with the developer. Mr. Kupferman then moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Bolton opposing. Mr. Marshall said they have revisqd plans to reflect staff comments and are ready to submit a plan. Ms. Quimby then moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 of South Village Communities, LLC, until 19 April 2005. Mr. Kupferman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. -5- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 2005 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Cler q. I q—C) _ Date Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning FROM: Jon Dietrich, P.E. DATE: February 4, 2005 RE: Request for Waivers South Village Preliminary Plan (Master Plan) Submittal The following summarizes our understanding of the Design Waivers as reviewed and discussed, and our related recommendations. A. Minimum Pavement Widths For Collector 1. Min. of 20 ft. at Wetland Crossings: Applicant to provide guardrail setback (if guardrail required) sufficient for snow storage and roadside clearance. 2. 28 ft. (2-14 ft. lanes) for A Street (Section BV-66); -no on -street parking on this section 3. Min. of 20 ft. at bulbouts -along the Section ST-60P in center of project 4. Min. of 26 ft. for "collector" routes -minimum design speed to be 25 mph -A,D, and E Streets, in particular, are to have sections where on -street parking is restricted and/or prohibited, as discussed with City staff, near intersections, in front of the proposed School, and at other areas as indicated on a parking location and signage plan to be provided by the applicant in subsequent design review stage. -all public streets will be subject to City's winter parking ban regulations. B. Minimum Pavement Width For Local Streets 1. Minimum of 20 ft. at Wetland Crossings -On-street (curbside) parking should be prohibited along these sections, particularly on curved sections of the ST-60 and ST-50 roadways 2. Min. of 26 ft. with marked parking on one side 3. Min. of 24 ft. with no marked parking -On-street parking should be prohibited along the RD-50 section (V Street) C. Minimum Centerline Radius of Horizontal Curves For local streets with a design speed of 25 mph, recommend using minimum centerline radius of 180 ft. (per ITE using coefficient of side friction of 0.252 and cross -slope of-0.02). C:\Documents and Settings\brobertson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK138\MEMORANDUM2-4-05.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Brian Robertson February 4, 2005 Page 2 2. For collector streets with likely speed of 30 mph, minimum centerline radius recommended is 300 ft. unless roadway curve is otherwise posted for lower speed to correspond with smaller radius. D. Minimum Tangent Length Between Curves 1. Based on target speeds of 25 mph or less, and no superelevation on curves the minimum tangent length should be 50 feet. E. Minimum Distance Between Centerline Offsets for Local Streets 1. Specific distances requested from waiver for certain local street intersections appear allowable, based on anticipated low traffic volumes; specific locations/offsets based on preliminary plans are contained in memo from Dave Marshall dated 2/2/2005 (attached). F. Vertical (Stopping) Sight Distance 1. Stopping sight distance for proposed street intersections at Spear Street should not be waived (i.e. should be based on operating speeds on Spear Street). 2. For on -site collector and local streets with posted speeds of no greater than 25 mph, the recommended minimum stopping sight distance is 150 feet. G. Horizontal (Corner) Sight Distance 1. Corner (intersection) sight distance at the intersections of the proposed site roadways with Spear Street shall not be waived, but should be based on actual speed conditions on Spear Street and any proposed traffic control signage at the intersection. 2. On internal South Village intersections with collector roads (i.e. A Street, D Street, E Street), the minimum corner sight distance should be 280 feet based on a speed of 25 mph. Because of building features, landscaping and on - street parking yet to be detailed, the ability to meet intersection sight distance minimums needs to be evaluated further in subsequent design stages when possible need for traffic control (i.e. STOP signs or other intersection controls) can be better defined. At minimum, stopping sight distance requirements should be met at intersections based on expected operating speeds of on -site traffic. H. Other 1. Intersection traffic control signage and markings need to be considered and provided to City Staff in more detail in -subsequent design stages for certain sharp curves on roadway alignments including: a. D Street just South of E Street. b. Mid -section of M Street c. Mid -section of F Street CADocuments and Settings\brobertson\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK138\MEMORANDUM2A-05.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Brian Robertson February 4, 2005 Page 3 d. Mid -section of D Street (at north end) These locations do not meet minimum curve radii and should be treated more as intersections. 2. Fire/emergency equipment traffic circulation: on -street parking near intersections and some intersection area widening may be necessary to accommodate the City's fire truck turning movements (e.g. boulevard island cutback at intersection of A Street and B Street; intersection of A Street and D Street; mid -section curve on F Street.) Subsequent intersection and roadway design plans need to be reviewed and approved by City staff/officials. Attachment C: Bruce Hoar Rick Chellman Dave Marshall C:\Documents and Settings\brobertson\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK138\MEMORANDUM2-05.doc Page 1 of 3 Jon Dietrich - RE: South Village From: "Dave Marshall" <dmarshall@cea-vt.com> To: "'Dave Marshall"' <darshall@cea-vt.com>, <JDietric@fando.com> Date: 2/2/2005 8:54:16 AM Subject: RE: South Village CC: "'Rick Chellman"' <chellman@worldpath.net>, "'Mh@Retrovest. Com"' <mh@retrovest.com>, "'David"' <ds@retrovest.com> Jon - Here is a progress plan showing the interrelationship of the proposed streets and on - street parking program. The signage was an issue in order to make the program work, therefore we have included the parking signing. This plan will ultimately be expanded to include stop signs, street signs, warning signs, etc. David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 928 Falls Road, PO Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482-0485 P 802-985-2323 F 802-985-2271 dmarshall(cr,cea-vt.co n -----Original Message ----- From: Dave Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea-vt.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 5:07 PM To: 'JDietric@fando.com' Cc: 'Rick Chellman'; 'Mh@Retrovest. Corn'; 'David' Subject: RE: South Village Jon - Regarding Item 2b - specific detail /locations of the intersections where waivers from the centerline offset standard are requested; We offer the following list for your review which will be formally submitted to you: C Street to D Street Along F Street - 145' G Street to C Street Along F Street - 150' G Street to B Street Along F Street - 145' Common Lane (South) to E Street Along E Street - 60' Common Lane (South) to E Street Along D treet 7.86' ? Common Lane (North) to A Street Along,A' treet 50' _. f Common Lane (North) to A Street Along B Street - 190' Regarding Item 2e - removal of some on -street parking near intersections and entrance roadways CEA is preparing a plan that shows the revised on -street parking coupled with the proposed signing plan. We hope to send this out on Tuesday Night as a .pdf for you to review. David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 928 Falls Road, PO Box 485 file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\jond\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GWIOOOO1.HTM 2/2/2005 FEB, 7._005 11cSSW, FUSS 2, ONEILL i4SPPJG NO. 217 P.' 3� Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 78 interstate Drive West Springfield, MA 01089 TEL 413 452.0445 FAX 413 846-0457 INTERNET: www.FandO.com FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET Other ofte:: Manchester, Connecticut Trumbull, Connecticut North Palm Beach, Florida Albany, Now York Poughkeeasie, New York Greenvale, North Carolina King of Prussia, Pennsylvania Providence, Rhode Island Columbia, South Caroi!na For': Worth, Texas Snelburne, Vermont This facsimile and the information it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify us by telephone and return the original fax to this office by mail. DATE: February 7, 2005 TO: Brian Robertson COMPANY: South Burlington Planning & Zoning FAX NO.: 802-846-4.101 TELEPHONE NO.: 802-846-4108 FROM: Jon Dietrich JOB NO.: 20041008A10 RE: South Village Traffic Study - Review Comments NO. OF PAGES: 7 (includes cover sheet) COMMENTS: Here ,are hardcopies of the 2 memos I emailed to you: - Request For Waivers Memo, dated Feb 4, 2004 - Review of Traffic Study Memo, dated Feb. 7, 2004 FEB, 71.200E 1_:579�t FUSS & ONEILL WSPRhNG P. u Foss & O'NeW Inc. ME OR.ANDUNI TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington DT&-:ment of Planning & Zoning FROM.- Jon Dietrich, P.E. BATE r February 4, 2005 ,)1JJ 0 RE: Request for Waivers South Village Preliminary Plan (Master Plan) Submittal. The following summarizes our understanding of the Design Waivers as reviewed and discussed, and our related recommendations. A. Minimum Pavement Widths For Collector L Min. of 20 ft. at Wetland Crossings; .Applicant to provide guardrail setback (if guardrail required) sufficient for snow storage and roadside clearance, 2. 28 ft. (2-14 ft. lanes) for A Szeet (Section BV-66); -no on -street parking on this section 3. Min, of 20 ft. at bulbouts -along the Section ST-60P in center of project 4. Min. of 26 ft. for "collector" routes -minimum design speed to be 25 mph -A,D, and E Streets, in particular, are to have sections where on -street parking is restricted and/or prohibited, as discussed with City staff, near intersections, in front of the proposed School., and at ocher areas as indicated on a parking location and signage plan to be provided by the applicant in subsequent design review stage, -all public streets will be subject to City's winter parldng ban regulations. B. Minimum Pavement Width For Local Streets 1. Minimum of 20 ft. at Wetland Crossings -On-street (curbside) parking should be prohibited along these sections, particularly on curved sections of the ST-60 and ST-50 roadways 2. Min, of 26 it, with marked parking on one side 5. Min. of 24 ft. with no marked parking -On-street parking should be prohibited along the RD•50 section (V Street) C, Minimum Centerline Radius of Horizontal Carves 1. For local streets with a design speed of 25 mph, recommend using minimum centerline radius of 180 ft. (per TTE using coefficient of side friction of 0.2.52 and MSS-51Ope, of-0.02). F120NI DNA,' VNIENtORA.NDLIM2.4-05.doe FEB. 7. =00T i'..: 5941 FUSS & ONEILL WSPRHG N0. c 17 P..S FUSS & O'Neill Inc, Brian Robertson February 4, 2005 Page 2 2. For collector streets with likely speed of 30 mph, minimum centerline radius recommended is 300 ft. unless roadway curve is otherwise posted for lower speed to correspond with smaller radius. D. Minimum Tangent length Between. Curves 1. Based on target speeds of 25 mph or less, and no superelevation on curves the minimum tangent length should be 50 feet. E. Minimum Distance Between Centerline Offsets for Local Streets 1. Specific distances requested from waiver for certain local street intersections appear allowable. based on anticipated low traffic volumes; specific locations/offsets based -on preliminary plans are contained in memo from Dave Marshall dated 2/2/2005 (attached). F. Vertical (Stopping) Sight Distance 1. Stopping sight distance for proposed street intersections at Spear Street should not be waived (i.e. should be based on operating speeds on Spear Street). 2. For on -site collector and local streets with posted speeds of no greater than 25 mph, the recommended minimum stopping sight distance is 150 feet. G. Horizontal (Corner) Sight Distance 1. Comer (intersection) sight distance at the intersections of the proposed site roadways with Spear Street shall not be waived, but should be based on actual speed conditions on Spear Street and any proposed traffic control siguge at the intersection. 2. On internal South Village intersections with, collector roads (i.e. A Street, D Street, E Street), the minimum comer sight distance should be 280 feet based on a speed of 25 mph. Because of building features, landscaping and on - street parldag yet to be detailed, the ability to meet intersection sight distance minimums needs to be evaluated father in subsequent design stages when possible need for traffic control (Le. STOP signs or outer intersection controls) can be better defined. At minimum, stopping sight distance requirements should be met at intersections based on expected operating speeds of on -site traffic. H. Other Intersection traffic control signage and markings need to be considered and provided to City Staff in more detail in -subsequent design stages for certain sharp curves on roadway alignments including: a. D Street just South of Street. b. Mid -section of _M Street c. Mid -section of F Street F,\P2004�,1008'Ala',MF,MaR&NDUM24.054% FEB. EOE'•5 12;OOPN FUSS & ONEILL WSPPNG N!.c11 P.4 Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Brian Robertson Febraary 4, 2005 Page 3 d, Mid -section of D Street (at north end) These locations do not meet minimum curve radii and should be treated more as intersections. 2. Fire/emergency equipment traffic circulation: on et parking near intersections and some intersection area widening may be necessary to accommodate the City's fire truck turning movements (e,g. boulevard island cutback at intersection of A Street and B Street; intersection of A Street and D Street; mid -section curve on F Street) Subsequent intersection and roadway design plans need to be reviewed and approved by City, atafuafficials. Attachment C: Bruce Haar Rick Chellman Dave Marshall F:1P2004',1008'A 10\MEMOXA.NDUM2.4.OS.d of FEB. r . 20ST FUSS & 1=1NEILL WSPR AG Fuss -& O'Neill inc. r;n.2'l"' P. _ INEENMORANDLi14 TO: Brian. Robertsun, Associate Plantaer Sou h Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning k'l OM.1 ; Jon Dietrich, P.E. BATE: February 7, 2005 RE: Review of Traffic Study South Village Preliminary Plan (Master Plan) Submi`tals This is a. followup to my memo of January 4, 2004 which presented review co-waents on the Traffic Study For South Village. I have discussed questions on the traffic study with the project's traffic consultant, Rick Chellman. and he has provided supplemental informatian, calculations, and analysis. You should have also received copies of this correspondence. Information we have reviewed includes the following: • Traffic Impact Study For South Viiiage —April 8, 2004 • Traffic .Impact Study Addendum -- June 17, 2004 • Traffic Impact Study Addendum 162 — December 22, 2004 • Response to comments — January 13, 20L15 • Updated Traffic Analysis package — January 31, 2005 • Letter Response to Comments and Additionai LOS Analyses i Summaries-- February 1, 2005 • FAX of Revised PM Traffic Assignment and Capacity Analysis — Feb. 2, 2005 1 a Trip Generation / Traffic Assigrmera There remains a discrepancy in the site traffic assignment at the North Drive and South Chive for the PM peak hour. The latest figure (dated 2l2E2005) with the revised traMo assignments used for the capacity analysis shows different northbound, right turn site traffic volumes turning into the site as compazed to the Phi Design Hour Project Traffic Turning Movements sbown in the December 2004 Addenddm #2. It doesn't appear that this will significantly impact the level of service analysis or the conclusion regarding the need for special left rum treatment for turning traffic on Spear St. as suggested, but this should he confimed. 2. SpearlSazft Street intersection Analysis The traffic consultant has provided compazison of NO -BUILD (without the project) and BUILD (with the project) traffic conditions appropriately for the existing lanes on northbound and southbound Spear Street approaches. However, the analysis of the 54A!ft Street westbound appioazt should be recalculated (tbr both. v0 BLdD 4 BLT-D conditions) to reflect the actual lane configuration on this approach, since the analysis did not use the separate left rum iane as exists now (and v%ill amain in future). Also, the longer range improvement for the intersection which was proposed in the Corridor study, (with proposed lazing and. HCS analysis that we sent to the traffic consultant) proposes separating the northbound Spear Street approach into left F:'1'200t�I008`�! 01TI5VlE.4S00204o5jw•d,9o: FEB. 200E 1E:01-.PN FUSS & ONEILL WSrRHG 217' F. r• Fuss & 011NO ll I=. IvMMQ — Brian Robertson February 7, 2005 Page 2 turn, through lane, and right turn lanes. The consultant's analysis did not show this lane configuration, but looked at a double left turn lane instead. Three lanes or. the eastbound Swift Street approach were also assumed in the Corridor Study scenario, but were not analyzed in the South Village study. 3. Traffic Added To Spear Street Intersections The consultant has provided a tabulation of the added site traffic from South Village (during AM and PM peak hours) as a percent of the total traffic at the various intersections for the year 2008 and 2013 BUILD condition. The increase in traffic due to South Village at the Spear Stteet/Switt Street intersection is as follows: • AM Peak Hour (Yeas 2008): 8.8% Increase • PM Weak Hour (Year 2008). 7.8% increase The increase is based on a comparison of the added site traffic (summed for all approaches) to the total intersection approach traffic without, the project (summed for all approaches). For the Spear Street/Allen Road Intersection, the following is indicated: • AM Peak Hour (Year 2008): 18.5% Increase e PM Peak dour ('Year 2008). 15.7% Increase 4. Traffic Impact Mitigation -Measures The following axe locations of potential traffic impact or areas where traffic concerns have been raised that should be considered for implementation of mitigation measures. a. South Village Access at Spear Street'Allen Intersection Project proponent is responsible for contributing to the design and construction of traffic signalization at the Spear Street/Allen Road intersection, and related roadway approach widening, traffic signing, and pavement markings. This includes desige and construction of a left turn lane on Spear Street in the southbound approach for traffic turning into South Village. b. Forth Site Drive & South Site Drive at Spear Street The intersections of the proposed North. Drive (J Street) and proposed South Drive (E Street) are proposed to have left turn lanes for southbound traffic turning into the site. The project proponent is responsible for the design and construction of these roadway features, along with related roadway widening of Spear Street, traffic signing, and pavement markings. C. Spear Street/S,,vift Street intersection The traffic projections for the full buildout of the project indicate a significant contribution of added traffic at the Spear/Swift intersection. The F:oF3004\10081a:01715MXW.00J Ot3wa.aot FEB, 7 . Er 0 1_r OZF'M FUSS > ONEILL 14SPR4G f�G. cl r E'. Fuss & O'Neill Ire, MEMO — Brian Robertson February 7, 2005 Page 3 project proponent should contribute to improvements to this intersection. Details of the procedure for cost -sharing and the amount to be contributed to the design. and construction/implementation of specific intersection improvements Neer to be agreed upon. A basis for cost sharing could be the relative percent increase in peak hour traffic compared to the no -build condition, or the percent reduction in capacity during the peak hour for the mdtieal approach lanes at the intersection. The traffic consultant has provided alternative signat timing analyses, but has not provided a sg=gZ of the recommended changes to the timing and/or signal phasing based on the added site traffic. The additional length of turn lanes due to added site traffic, as compared to the NO -BUILD condition, should also be provided. d, South Village Public Streets The. City may want to consider monitoring certain traffic operations on the streets and roads which are to be public right-of-ways. This monitoring would include the following.: a.) periodic counts of hourly and 24-hour traffic volumes on l`rl. Street (just west of Midland Ave.); b.) monitoring on -street parking along A Street, D Street- and E Street (i.e. review of reported complaints, reported motor vehicle, bike and/or pedestrian incidents/accidents on file with South Burlington Police Department). c.) other monitoring as may be desired by the City; The project proponent should designate a South Village Transportation Coordinator to act on behalf of the project on an on -going basis as the key contact person during project construction and after completion of the project (i.e. after full buildout). C. Bruce Hoar, South Burlington DPW Kick Chellman, TND Dave Marshall, CEA FAI".0041100R`A10\TI3MEM402W;-jN*#60c 1270 Route 16, P.O.Box 388 Ossipee, NH 03864 Ph 603.539.5999 fax 603.539.7912 To: Jon Dietrich From: Rick Chellman Fax: Pages: 7 Phone: 603-539-5999 Date: 02/02/2005 Re: CC: ❑ Urgent x For Review ❑ Please Comment -3 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle • Comments: Jon Some of the AM turning movements crept into the PM analy;;is; there are 35 SB lefts at the North drive and 38 at the south. I will call you in a few moments. Rick Cl 2TGL GES 609 dOZ=i,,O so Z0 qaj PMDHV 2008 Future Build With Other Programmed 66s� 5%D Va - `l96 V"d,j= G�5 L 7- /a..,e �4ea4,,w s4r.. led ke eh,.0G4+e e/ ft Amen Rd Spear & Allen n2ro2i2nn5 A w 1�78> CC "-20 r North Drive ,6C i a CQ � N� ej d' Central Site 2- 7 drive 01 1 1LO 5ti jug 40 �iC. I 65 tLf Q) Co 20 Soutr h=` 6 , 7? .-..... tic SIUC7yxz1'US PMDtiV Build with Programmed+Drives.sy7 a-d aI6L 6ES E09 dOZ:bO SO 20 qaa Future 2008 Build Conditions PMDHV Spear & North Drive PM Peak With Other Programmed 02/02/2005 * I t Movement..... WBL__-WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T I* Sign Control Stop Free Free Yv ,,/4-(G cily Grade 0% 0% 01% Volume (veh/h) 11 19 470 7 34 606 � 7'7)u r{ vuls /, G y Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ;.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 21 531 8 38 ;85 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1297 535 539 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1297 535 539 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 96 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 172 545 1029 Direction, Lane # ',` VVg t NBA 1 . TSB 1 Volume Total 34 539 723 Volume Left 12 0 38 Volume Right 21 8 0 cSH 304 1700 1029 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.32 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 3 Control Delay (s) 18.3 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 18.3 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary _ Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2008 PMDHV Build with Programmed+Drives.sy7 6'd ZTSL 66S 609 d02:to so 20 qaA Future 2008 Build Conditions PMDHV Spear & South Drive PM Peak With Other Programmed 02/02/2005 t t # Movement WBL WBR' ,NBT ` NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations T+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 00/0 Volume (veh/h) 4 19 317 2 37 710 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 21 358 2 42 803 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1246 359 361 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1246 359 361 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 185 685 1198 Direction, Lane Volume Total 26 361 844 Volume Left 5 0 42 Volume Right 21 2 0 cSH 466 1700 1198 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.21 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 3 Control Delay (s) 13.2 0.0 0.9 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.2 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS B )ntersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2008 PMDHV Build with Programmed+Drives.sy7 TND Engineering .1, - d 2 16G 6ES E09 dOZ = too So ao qa j PMDHV 2013 Spear & Alien Future Build With Other Programmed --- — --•.... UPIIIIyiLJIIILFdilit; s[uQYVUIs PMDHV Build with Program med+Drives.sy7 S'd zTGL GES E09 dOZ=t,O SO ZO qaA Future 2013 Build Conditions PMDHV Spear & North Drive PM Peak With Other Programmed 02/02/2005 Movement WBL ' WBR NST NBR SBL - SBT Lane Configurations Y T-) -T Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 00% Volume (veh/h) 10 18 486 18 32 879 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 20 549 20 36 994 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1626 560 570 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1626 560 570 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 96 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 108 528 1003 Direction,; Lane # Volume Total 32 570 1030 Volume Left 11 0 36 Volume Right 20 20 0 cSH 222 1700 1003 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.34 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 3 Control Delay (s) 23.9 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 23.9 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS C Intersection: Summa ry - - Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level or Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build with Programmed+Drives. sy7 9 ' d 216L 6ES 609 1 d j a : f,0 So ao qaA Future 2013 Build Conditions PMDHV Spear & South Drive PM Peak With Other Programmed 02/02/2005 ♦ Movement WBL WBR- NBT NBR S B L SBT _ Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 00,10 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 4 18 330 7 35 737 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 20 373 8 40 833 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1289 377 381 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1289 377 381 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 175 670 1178 Direction, Lane # 1NB t NB 1 :"SB 1' Volume Total 25 381 873 Volume Left 5 0 40 Volume Right 20 8 0 cSH 442 1700 1178 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.22 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 3 Control Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 0.9 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Stamme _ ry " Average Delay 0.9 ` Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 TND Engineering C:\My Doc uments\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build with Program med+Drives.sy7 L'd ZT6L 6ES 609 dTz:-bO SO ao qaA Page 2 of 3 Shelburne, VT 05482-0485 P 802-985-2323 F 802-985-2271 dmarshall@cea-vt.com -----Original Message ----- From: Rick Chellman [mailto:chellman@worldpath.net] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 4:41 PM To: Dave Marshall Subject: Fwd: South Village this just in Begin forwarded message: From: "Jon Dietrich" <JDietric@fando.com> Date: January 31, 2005 2:51:08 PM EST To: <chellman@worldpath.net> Cc: <brobertson@sburl.com> Subject: South Village Rick: I'm looking for your followup to our meeting we had on Jan. 18. Steve Savaria emailed you the Spear St./ Swift St. signal timing info you requested today - please let me know if you didn't receive it. Here's the list of items we discussed which you were going to provide addtional info on (there may be some others as well): 1. TRAFFIC STUDY MATERIAL CLARIFICATION: The items (review comments paragraphs) in my January 4 memo numbered as follows: 8.; 10.; 14.; 15.; 16.;17.;22. (I think those were the primary ones). 2. DESIGN WAIVERS REVIEW: a. more info on tight curves on the green b. more specific detail /locations of the intersections where waivers from the centerline offset standard are requested; c. more specifics on horizontal sight distance "thresholds" d. candidate traffic calming techiniques for the n-s street e. removal of some on -street parking near intersections and entrance roadways I'd like to see these by Wed. if possible, so Bruce Hoar and Planning Office can review and prepare for next week's meeting. Thanks. JON Jon W. Dietrich, P.E. Associate Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. 78 Interstate Dr. West Springfield, MA. 01089 Phone: 413-452-0445 Ext. 4438 Fax: 413-846-0497 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jond\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 2/2/2005 Page 3 of 3 Email: jdietric@fando.com Website : www.FandO.com 1 file://C:\Documents%20and%203ettings\jond\Local%20Settings\Temp\GWlOOOO1.HTM 2/2/2005 South Village Infrastructure Cost Analysis Phases, as required to Serve 2/1 /2005 Run # 2 Construction Phase Units Son Cost $/Unit Ser'$/All Units* From Village Through Ridge Neighborhood 64 1,168,000 From Village Through Ridge Neighborhood, South Drive 0 910,000 3,396 Village through Ridge, Total 64 2,078,000 32,469 7,754 Dorset Farms Connector 0 0 0 384,000 1,433 Total Infrastructure Cost, Eastern Section 2,462,000 38,469 9,187 Amortization Alternatives Assuming Sales Escrow Phasing Alternative One: Total Connection Amortized by Village Neighborhood Alone: Total Units 156 15,782 Adjustment for Non -Market Housing 125 19,696 Phasing Alternative Two: Total Connection Amortized by Vj illage & Field Neighborhoods: Total Units 1 1 255 9,655 Adjustment for Non -Market Housing 204 12,069 Phasing Alternative Three: Total Connection Amortized by Total Buildout �c-, (6-7 �V'�c� Total Units 1 338 7,327 Adjustment for Non -Market Housing 268 9,187 Note: Density Assumptions Acreage 224.18 Units/Acre Allowed 1.2 0 Underlying Density 269 Density Bonus 25% 0 Bonus Units 67 0 Total Units 336 Allowance, Pro Rata 20.00% * For the Purpose of Calculating Per Unit Costs, Bonus Units are subtracted CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VER.MONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February 4, 2005 David Scheuer The Retrovest Companies 70 South Winooski Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: South Village Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 17921 SMITH ROAD, P.O. BOX 256, BRODHEAD, WI 53520 PHONE: (608)897-8641 FAX: (608)897-8486 email: info@appliedeco.com SPECIALISTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH February 1, 2005 Mr. David Scheuer Retrovest Companies 70 South Winosk Ave. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Response to commentary on ecological restoration programs for South Village, South Burlington, VT (AES #01-636) Dear David, The following point by point response to comments raised during recent4ggnnin& 9 commnissitrn meetings for the South Village project. As you are aware we have prepared a series of documents for the South Village project as follows: A Preliminary draft of a "Community Land Management Plan" A Review draft of "Restoration and Management Plans and Specifications" A series of documents, including graphics with existing and proposed ecological conditions, and supporting technical documentation for the restoration basis. The justification for the restoration program has been included in these documents. The following resurrects some of the previous information from the project and addresses the questions raised during the recent meetings. We understand that the consultant from Arrowood Environmental did not have the opportunity to review the "Restoration and Management Plans and Specifications" submitted in early January. This document further refined the preliminary draft of a "Community Land Management Plan" and therefore some of his comments had already been addressed in the more detailed Management Plan but for clarity we have outlined our specific responses herein. 1. Great Swamp Restoration Intentions: Our field review of the margin of the Great swamp on the South Village property revealed the invasion by two exotic plant species to be occurring: the Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinancea) and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). The only restoration work we anticipate doing within the Great Swamp margins in the South Village property would be to halt the invasion and population growth threat by these species by very specific "individual plant targeted" efforts to pull, cut, and stump treat with a wick applicator (if necessary) with the herbicide Glyphosphate. The details of the procedures are documented in the `Restoration and Management Plans and Specifications" document for the project. 2. Savannas, and the History of Fire in the Champlain Basin, Clay plains: In our technical summary report on ecological context, we provided several key technical references, which document a long standing native American -use of fire in the Champlain basin and many other areas east and south. A local cited document summarizes the regional prevalence of fire adapted plant species including bur oak, shagbark hickory and many others. In our experience these species occurred in locations with historic open spaced canopy trees developed in a meadow setting, a condition we and others have characterized in the technical literature as a "savanna". The language over whether to call sites savannas, open forests, barrens, glades or numerous other terms is something that can be discussed without resolve. What's more important in our opinion in South Village is to use and perhaps find a consistent language for referencing these forests. The regional language refers to these forests as "oak -hickory forests, which was the same terminology throughout much of the US, at least until research we and others conducted in the mid- 1980's brought greater definition and understandings of these systems. We (Haney and Apfelbaum 1990) defined the classification for these forest types based on 15 years of studies, including fire ecological investigations, in these systems. Our classification is generally consistent with others such as The Nature Conservancy's National classification. My understanding is there has been local discussion about the historic role of fire in these forests types on the clay plains around Lake Champlain (Capen, personal communications). It is also our understanding that key regional experts on the management of these forest types recognize that they are best regenerated with use of prescribed fire in other parts of the US and that they have acknowledged this historic role for dry and wet oak hickory forests in the Champlain Clay plains. As principle researchers of this ecosystem type throughout the US and in Canada, we have conclusively documented the regular fire history and use of fire management to regenerate and manage such forests with virtually identical tree, sapling, shrub and ground story composition and structure as to what is found in the Champlain Clay Plains. Unequivocally, fire has played a very important role over hundreds of millions of acres of these similar forests in similar soils in the US and Canada. In summary, the Clay Plain forests have been recognized as unique in Vermont, and partly as a result of this, Vermont natural resource experts have been trying to understand the management and protection needs of these forests. In the midwestern US, starting in the 1980's, we experienced the same process of research and debate on the management needs of very similar forests. We learned that their history was largely anthropogenic, being created and maintained by indigenous peoples through the use of fire. We also learned that most plants and animals in these systems were fire adapted and in fact many are primarily regenerated with fire. Over two decades of research and tests and demonstration projects on the management of these forests has confirmed the management -use of fire as an essential element to maintain the biological diversity, structure and composition of vegetation and wildlife communities in these forests. Based on our review of these Vermont forests, we are confident our understandings from them and other oak -hickory forests apply to the clay plain forests around Lake Champlain. 3. Use of Native Indigenous Plant Species: While we appreciate commentary about the details on which plant species could be used in restoring native landscapes at South Village, it must also be understood that the documentation and included species lists prepared to date were intended to provide for a discussion with local experts on the species mixes, not to provide definitive listings. And, per the intentions of the draft and review documents, we have received and will update the species listings for the various restoration zones included in the South Village project. Because most people in the Burlington area have little to no experience with restoration projects, their structure, format, process and intentions, our goal was to provide our commonly used document structure in the above reports to simply start the process of refinement in the details of the species mixes and quantities. Of course, even the listings will need subsequent refinement as local genotype seeds and plants for many species are not available commercially and will have to be collected and grown for the South Village project. We have received a technical review by Art Gilman with William D. Countryman Company with numerous suggested species changes as apart of the refinement anticipated and requested of local experts. These changes will be included in updated versions for the referenced reports and plans. 4. Prescribed Burning: Evidence from the Champlain Basin, Clay plains for a history of fire in many local ecological systems suggests clearly that recent land use and occupancy has eliminated the historic role of fire as a structuring element in these ecological systems. There are other areas of Vermont with minimal or little historic evidence of regular recurring fire and this has been documented by archeologists. However, the technical references we have reviewed suggest the contrary history for the Clay Plains around Lake Champlain, especially in locations with known Native American settlements. Our goal is to introduce fire as an intermittent, infrequently used management tool to favor ecological diversification, fuel load reduction, nutrient cycling, seed -bank stimulation and response, and the numerous other benefits of fire. As stated during the community meeting I attended, a fire rotation of 3-5 years is anticipated and the burn units would be designed to coordinate with human health and safety, wind direction and speed, and all typical contingencies associated with prescribed burning safety would be layed out in formal burn plans prior to any burning being conducted. 5. Restoration Impact on Brushy Areas (e.g. woodcock) and other Wildlife: The restoration plan emphasizes and encourages the development of diverse native plant and animal communities in the South Village project property. Although brush areas will decrease in "The Ridges" location, we intend to create additional areas in the margins of the central wetland in the property (e.g. by planting various native shrub willows, dogwoods, etc) and replace invasive buckthorn growths with native shrubs. The outcome of the South Village restoration plan will be the improvement of existing deteriorated habitats, addition of newly restored habitats, and linking of most if not all habitats in an open space system. In other projects where we have undertaken similar restorations, the native plant and wildlife diversity has increased. Please let me know of other concerns and thoughts that may arise during the hearing and regulatory approval process. Yours very truly, Steven I. Apfelbaum Certified Senior Ecologist Ecological Society of America Example Collection of Useful and Cited References Ahlgren, I.F. and C.E. Ahlgren 1960 Ecological effects of Forest Fire. Botanical Rev. 26: 483-533 Apfelbaum, S.I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journ. 5(3):9-17. Apfelbaum, S. I. and A. Haney). 1985 Changes in bird populations during succession following fire in the northern Great Lakes Wilderness; pp 10-16. In. Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference. Current Research. General Technical Report INT-212 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 553 pp. Apfelbaum, S. and C. Sams 1987 Ecology and management of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Natural Areas Journal 7(2):69-74. Apfelbaum, S. I. 1993 The Role of Landscapes in Stormwater Management. National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels, Chicago, Illinois, March 1993, USEPA conference. Pp: 165-169 Apfelbaum, J. D. Eppich, T. H. Price, and M. Sands 1995 The Prairie Crossing Project: Attaining Water Quality and Stormwater Management Goals in a Conservation Development. Using Ecological Restoration to meet Clean Water Act Goals. National Symposium on Using Ecological Restoration to Meet Clean Water Act Goals. Chicago, Illinois. March 14-16, 1995. USEPA Conference. Pp: 33-38. Apfelbaum, S. I. and K. Chapman 1997 Ecological Restoration: A Practical Approach. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources, Yale University. Pp: 301-322 Apfelbaum, S. I., M. Sands, T. H. Price, J. D. Eppich, P. M. Hoffman, and D. Hoffman 1997. On conservation developments and their cumulative benefits. In: Assessing the cumulative impacts of watershed demlopment on aquatic ecosystems and water quality: A National Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. March 19-21, 1996. Pp. 181-187 Capen, D. E. 2004. South Village wildlife assessment. Unpublished report submitted to Retrovest Companies. 9pp. Champlain Valley Clayplain Forest Project, 2001 Champlain Valley Clayplain Forest, natural History and Stewardship. 18 pps, www.clayplain.org Cronon, W. 1985 Changes in the Land, Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York, NY. 235 pps. Crow, T. T., A. Haney and D. M. Waller 1994 Report on the Scientific Roundtable on Biological diversity Convened by the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-166 Haney, A. and S.I. Apfelbaum. 1990. Structure and dynamics of Midwest oak savannas. In, J.M. Seeney (ed.), Management of Dynamic Ecosystems. North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, West Lafayette, Indiana. Haney, A. and S.I Apfelbaum. 1994. Measuring changes in oak savannas: a review and recommendations for a monitoring protocol. In, J.S. Fralish, R.C. Anderson, J.E. Ebinger, and R. Szafoni (eds), Proceedings of the North American Conference on Barrens and Savannas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois. Pp. 253-257. Ludwig, J.P. and S. I. Apfelbaum Unpublished data 1978-1992: Vegetation, Small Mammal, and Bird Response to Minded Land Reclamation at the Jackson County Iron Company, Black River Falls, WI. Annual Technical reports to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Miller, J. In press Conservation Developments and Conservation. Journal of Conservation Biology. Wilcox, S.A. S.I. Apfelbaum, and R.D. Hiebert. 1985 Cattail invasion of sedge meadows following hydrologic disturbance in the Cowles Bog Wetland Complex, Indiana Dunes Natural Lakeshore. Wetlands (4):115-128. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February 2, 2005 David Scheuer The Retrovest Companies 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Minutes — South Village Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the January 4, 2005 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, --?* pdvq�kl Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOClAtMe MCA 928 Falls Road Phone: 802-985-2323 P.O. Box 485 Fax: 802-985-2271 Shelburne, VT 05482 E-Mail: January 31, 2005 Megan Moir Heindel & Noyes 434 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05401 Re: South Village South Burlington, VT Dear Megan: I just wanted to follow up on our discussion last week regarding the South Village project, and to make sure you have all the materials you need for review of the stormwater modeling. On Friday, I hand -delivered a copy of plan sheet H-1 to your office, which shows the watershed areas used within the stormwater model. You should also have received copies of two HydroCad models (pre and post development) for the portion of our site draining toward Bartlett Brook. As we discussed, it should be relatively simple to incorporate this model information into your Bartlett Brook model as a link. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions you may have, or if additional materials would be helpful for your review. Respectfully, Paul M. Boisvert Staff Engineer CC Brian Robertson, Assistant City Planner (South Burlington) Michelle Holgate, Retrovest Properties \pmb H&N follow-up.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington Planning & Zoning FROM: Jon Dietrich, P. E.J.0 DATE: January 4, 2005 RE: South Village Traffic Study Review Comments The following are comments we offer after reviewing the Traffic Study For South Village dated April 16, 2004, the Traffic Study Addendum dated June 17, 2004, and the Traffic Impact Study Addendum #2 dated December 22, 2004 (including a Technical Appendix). The page numbers refer to those in the respective report, unless otherwise noted. Many of these comments are the same as in our November 16, 2004 Draft memo to you. We would propose that we have a conference call (or informal meeting) with you, Rick Chellman, and Bruce to discuss these and get the clarification requested. It would be preferable to receive an itemized response to these individual comments (with backing data and analysis if required) rather than a whole new report or addendum. 1. p. 4, April Study: A 1% annual growth in background traffic was used for projections, but appears not to have taken into account the programmed developments along the Spear St. corridor; in Addendum #2, growth factors are still being applied to the Build volumes in the capacity analysis. All of the background growth should be accounted for in the Future No build volumes, with the Build condition simply reflecting the addition of the site traffic. The derivation of these volumes needs to be explained. For example, how were the "2008 No Build" volumes derived (as in the April report), compared to the "2008 No Build with Programmed" (as in the December Addendum). 2. p. 5, April Study: What was the basis for the relatively small (5%) trip distribution using Midland Ave./ Dorset St.? 3. p. 6, April Study: Why wasn't the Midland Ave / Dorset St. intersection part of the capacity analysis? We feel some discussion and analysis of existing and future traffic conditions at this intersection is warranted. 4. p. 10, April Study: The traffic volumes referenced from the Spear St. Corridor Study are not correctly assigned to the turning movements at the Spear / Swift intersection; FAP2004\1008W10\new memorandum.doc Contract (MA) Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 2 5. p. 11, April Study: It is noted that the trip generation for the site has changed since the April study, due to a change in the mix of type of residential units. The relative distribution of driveway traffic, as distributed to the North Drive, the Central Drive (opposite Allen Road) and the South Drive, has also changed. There is less traffic now assigned to the Central Drive during the PM peak hour per Addendum #2, (as compared to the April report), and more traffic assigned to the North and South Drives. Has there been a change in the location of the different land use types to cause this? 6. p. 13, April Study: There is no reference made to the specific programmed developments in the Spear St. corridor that were factored into this study. A listing of those projects and the traffic estimates used would be helpful. 7. December, Addendum #2: The labeling of the traffic volume figures and the capacity analysis output does not appear to follow the conditions described in the narrative. In the narrative, the conditions listed for analysis are 2008 and 2013 No Build with programmed development, and 2008 and 2013 Build with the site generated traffic added to the no Build volumes. The analysis and figures are labeled 2008 and 2013 No Build and Build with Programmed, and 2008 and 2013 No Build and Build with Programmed Other. There is no definition of the distinction between Programmed and Programmed Other. This needs clarification. 8. p. 20, April Study: Assumed existing traffic conditions at the Spear / Allen Rd. intersection used for the capacity analysis need to be checked or better documented/explained as the levels of service for existing conditions are not consistent with the Spear St. Corridor Study; same for Spear/Swift Street intersection, for example, the existing conditions AM & PM analysis assumed a separate 12' left -turn lane in the northbound approach. 9. p. 22, April Study: Need more documentation on basis for signal warrants analysis, such as peak hour and 8-hr. volumes assumed; 10. p. 23, April Study: A tabular comparison of the LOS differences between the HCM and the SIMTRAFFIC analysis would be helpful to clarify the statement on p. 23. 11. p.24, April Study: Although it doesn't appear to impact the conclusion, the opposing volumes (i.e. Spear St, northbound) shown in the left turn lane analysis at Allen Rd. are not all consistent with the intersection volumes contained in the Appendix 12. p. 4 of June 17, 2004 Addendum: More information needs to be presented concerning not providing a southbound left turn lane on Spear St. at the Allen Rd./ central driveway location. F:\P2004\1008\A10\new memorandum.doc I Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 3 13. p. 7, December Addendum #2: What's the proposed project development and constructions staging for South Village and how does this factor into the implementation of traffic mitigation / intersection improvements, including the signalization of Spear / Allen St.; page 7 states opening year 2004, not consistent with page 4 which states construction commences 2005 or early 2006; What is expected total build-out/occupancy date (i.e. when might all phases be occupied)? 14. p. 16,17, December Addendum #2: What is significance of footnote in Level of Service tables regarding "micro simulation analysis underway"? 15. p. 18, December Addendum #2: A chart was added showing the percent traffic added at various intersections. What year is the "Design Period"; peak hour traffic totals (rather than 24-hour traffic) would be more useful to compare, and would relate better to the capacity analysis. 16. p. 19, December Addendum #2: For the Spear/Swift intersection, what are the signal optimization recommendations you used. (i.e. what are proposed improvements to improve the LOS: timing, phase changes, other?); a written summary of these should be provided. 17. The two improvement alternatives recommended in the corridor study have not been analyzed for the future Build conditions. The short range improvement consists of modifying the signal to implement protected plus permissive left turn phasing for the EB, NB, and SB approaches, plus an EB right turn overlap. The long range improvements include widening for three lane approaches eastbound and northbound and quad left turns. 18. p. 19, December Addendum #2: For Spear/Allen intersection, why is no separate left turn lane southbound recommended? 19. p. 20, December Addendum #2: For Spear/Barstow intersection, what improvements could/should be considered to mitigate the LOS F condition? 20. p. 17, December Addendum #2: For Webster/Spear intersection, any improvements considered to mitigate the Los F condition? 21. Turning Movement Figures in Appendix, December Addendum 92: South Village AM Design Hour Project Traffic, site traffic doesn't add up between Webster Road and Barstow Road intersections. 22. December Addendum #2 and previous study: Why is there no capacity analysis of the two other site driveways at Spear Street (i.e. the north Drive and South Drive) Is there a need to consider left turn lanes relative to peak hour volumes? C: Bruce Hoar, South Burlington DPW Rick Chellman, TND FAP2004\1008\A10\new memorandum.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington Planning & Zoning FROM: Jon Dietrich, P.E. \ DATE: January 4, 2005 RE: South Village Preliminary Plan - Fire Truck Movements (Review of Fire Truck Turning Movements Plan (Sheets FT-1, FT-2) (Prepared by CEA, dated December 2004) 1. A Street • At Spear Street: Will need to pull center island area back • At B,C,D Streets: Will need to keep landscaping (trees) and parking away from intersection corner due to vehicle overhang 2. D Street • At L Street: Will need to open up intersection somewhat for truck swing; keep landscaping, parking away from corner 3. Lanes • Will large truck be able to swing into lanes from streets? Need to insure adequate curb returns, no parking obstruction and landscaping obstructions at intersection corners. • Is fire department satisfied that on -street parking along lanes will be controlled adequately to allow fire/emergency truck access particularly during snow conditions? 4. F Street • Same comment as D Street 5. E Street • Need to insure no curb -side parking near intersections 6. A copy of a letter dated December 27, 2004 prepared by CEA and addressed to Chief Brent was received by us, along with a colored plan showing Fire Truck Turning Movements and areas of designated on -street parking. On -street parking along certain streets, such as A Street, may be difficult to control near intersections and adjacent to the school. How will No Parking areas be marked and enforced? Why is there ON -STREET parking on E Street in that section between Spear Street and F Street? C: Bruce Hoar, South Burlington DPW Rick Chellman, P.E. TND FAP2004\100MA10\MEMORANDUM 104 05.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning FROM: Jon Dietrich, P.E. % v\) DATE: January 4, 2005 RE: Request for Waivers: South Village Preliminary Plan Submittal The following are my comments concerning review of the Request For Waivers dated September 28, 2004, as submitted by South Village project, as they relate to Planned Residential Developments, Section 15.12. I need to get a copy of the latest Street Hierarchy Plan that references the typical cross -sections before finalizing some of these comments. A. Min. Pavement Width for Collector 1.) 30' to 20' at wetland crossings Could be adequate as long as not on sharp curve, snow is not collected along guardrails, no parking is allowed along section and City emergency officials (fire, ambulance, police) have no objections due to emergency equipment operation; it is assumed that at these crossing areas there would be a sidewalk or recreation path beside the paved roadway 2.) 28' with parking on 1-side It doesn't appear that there is on -street parking allowed on the BV-66 sections; On -street parking should not be allowed on sharp curve sections or where corner or stopping sight distance would be impacted. 3.) 20' at bulbouts Where are these locations? 4.) 26' for collector routes Could be adequate as long as no parking on street; assuming these collector streets will be taken over by the City, the minimum design speed to be used for a local road should be 25 mph, although 30 mph for a collector street should be considered as a minimum design speed. It would be preferable to have A Street, E Street, and portions of D Street a minimum of 28 ft. wide, where on -street parking is allowed on one side. This is in view of these being public roads with higher traffic volumes, roadside development (i.e. school, apartments), seasonal snow conditions which will reduce the effective width of the roadway area, and width needed to turn in and out of local street intersections. F:\P2004\1008\AIO\MEMORANDUM.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMO Mr. Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 2 B. Min. Pavement Width For Local Streets 1.) 28' to 20' at wetland crossings (see comment for A. 1 above) 2.) 26' with parking on one side Should be adequate, as long as no parking along sharp curve sections, or where corner or stopping sight distance would be impacted. 3.) 24' with no striped parking Adequate if not on sharp curve sections. C. Min. Radius of Curves for Collector (500' to 260') Could be adequate, but approaches to curve needs to have appropriate speed zoning and curve warning signs; assumes no significant vertical curves which would impact sight distance; For a 30 mph speed, ITE suggests a minimum centerline horizontal curve radius of 300 feet. A 300 ft. minimum radius is suggested for this project. D. Min. Radius of curves for Local Streets (300' to 90') See comment for C. above; For speed of 20 mph, 100 ft. minimum centerline radius is suggested by ITE; at 25 mph, 180 ft. is minimum radius; roadway needs to be free of obstructions to sight distance for roadway vehicles so that stopping sight distance meets the City's design standards (for minimum vertical & horizontal sight distance) E. Min. Tangent Length between curves for Collector (150' to 50') 100 ft. would be better minimum on collector street; it is assumed that there are no waivers for the maximum street grades, minimum street grades, and maximum grades within 100 ft. of the line of intersection, per Table 15-1 of the Street Design Standards. F. Min. Tangent Length between curves for Local Streets. (100' to 50') Ok as long as speed limit is not more than 25 mph. G. Min. distance between centerline offsets for Local streets. (from 200' to reduced values) Should be subject to review of specific street traffic volumes and specific offset orientation. Typically 125 ft. would be recommended minimum offset between T-intersections of two local streets. H. Min. vertical (stopping) sight distance for Collectors (300'to 150') What are the traffic -calming techniques/devices that are being proposed to "ensure" reduced speeds to 25 mph? The recommended minimum stopping sight distance for a speed of 25 mph per AASHTO guidelines is 155 feet. This should be held as the minimum. I. Min. vertical (stopping) sight distance for Local Streets (200'to 150' & 125') Similar comment to paragraph H. above; for 25 mph speed, minimum stopping sight distance should be no less than 155 feet. F:\P2004\1008\AIO\MEMORANDUM.doc Fuss & O'Neill Inc. MEMO Mr. Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 3 J. Min. horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector (500' to 275') Biggest concern is how the speeds on the village street system can be reduced to desired speed limits. If target speed of 25 mph is allowed as design speed for collector roadway, then minimum corner sight distance (i.e. intersection sight distance) should be 280ft.; this would assume there is no on -street parking at or near the approach to the intersection that would impact the clear sight line. K. Min. horizontal (corner) sight distance for Local Street (300' to 275' & 220') As in paragraph J. comment, minimum corner sight distance should be 280 feet for a speed of 25 mph. At 20 mph the intersection sight distance should be 225 ft. minimum. It is important that there be no on -street parking or landscaping/fences that interfere with this clear sight line. Regarding the local lanes and rear lanes (alleys) of the project, the City needs to consider the acceptability of pavement widths with on -street parking for emergency access (e.g. fire truck circulation/access) and snow storage (i.e. resulting cleared pavement width when accounting for snow/ice buildup on sides of roadways). It would be helpful to have the most current site plan which shows the location of what will be "public" streets, along with the typical section codes for all streets in the project. The latest site plan from CEA (sent to me November 10, 2004) is different than the street plan shown in the July 28, 2003 letter by TND Engineering. I'd like to see a street plan for the site that references the location of the Typical Street Sections as shown on plan sheets T4.3, T4.4, T4.5, and T4.6 C: Bruce Hoar, South Burlington DPW Rick Chellman, P.E., TND F:T2004\ 1008\A 10\MEM ORANDUM.doc 11111111111111M Lie M M M M M INK M� a111111111111L am south Vila(If, Vehicular Trim Generation iTE Trip Generation Ah Edition Weekday Description Dwellings/0 Weekday A Wi pk Enter Exit P;4 Peak Enter Ex4 17E LUC North @ Spear Single Family t1antity 29 332 30 8 22 35 22 1.3 LUC 210 "Field's Edge" Multi Family 18 149 13 2 11 15 10 5 LUC 230 Farm 1 10 2 1 1 2 1 1 Est Apartments 52 654 32 7 25 38 25 13 LUC 221. 1,145 77 18 59 90 58 32 less 5% East 57 4 � 1 3 5 3 2 net 1.,088 73 -61 l'0 17 5G 85 55 30 unit total: 99 Central entrance Single Family 44 487 40 10 30 51 32 19 LUC 210 Multi Family 81 537 44 7 37 51 34 17 LUC 230 middle school 50 81 27 15 12 8 4 4 LUC 522 High school 50 153 41 28 13 7 3 4 LUC 530 Apartments 36 572 _ 24 5 � 19 27 18 9 LUC 221 unit total: 161 1,530 1.76 65 111 144 91 53 less 5% East 92 9 3 6 7 5 3 net 1,738 167 I(AP0 62 105 L37 86 50 South @ Spear Single Family 25 290 27 7 20 31 20 11 LUC 210 Multi Family 15 128 11 2 9 13 9 4 LUC 230 Apartments 36 572 24 5 19 27 18 9 LUC 221 jinit total: 76 _ 990 _ �62� 14 48 71 47 24 less 5% East so 3 m 1 2 4 2 1 net 940 59 j 13 46 67 45 23 unit total: 336 net overall 3,766 299 04.1 92 207 289 186 103 see Overall totals 3,965 315 97 21B 305 196 109 above Rtvised 12/19/04 TIED Engineering P 0 Box 388 Ossipee, NH 03864 m N (A -a s CO CO z r9 H r- r T- 43 X FEB. 42005 2: 53RI FUSS & ONEILL WSPRNG SQUth Village Traffic impact Study December, 2004 1 22 3 Cheese Barsca�rv` Fed I r tFactory Swift St. 5 1 10 1 17 + 556015 C/) 10CD (D 0) -23 '"' 8 CID L41" +-4 4 -4 26 Allen Road t r 12 South Village AM Design Hour Project Traffic Turning Movements Amended IfM05 Page W 1 19 Barstow Rd 4 W t FE5 . 4. c00S$Ff I FUSS a GHEILL NSPFhG j 79 11 Lit,1 .Alen Rd 44 20 --r• 1217394 .J � L-0. i 4� South Village AM Design Hour Project Traffic Turning Movement! Page South Village Traffic Impact Stud tDecember, i004 130 35 ;North Drive 21 fib .-.� 22 17 Site 103210 +-- 39 7 i 2 33 15 South Drive TND Engineering December, 2004 FEB. 4.FC05 '—;:':59PN FUSS ONEILL WSPRNG 1 D. V-1:92 Sou"LlI I Ilidge fi eiAilc IpIp4ct Stu, - December, 2004 2 5 Cheese Barstow Rd --*I t r* Factory. 120 2 3 e 4 19 7 Allen Road 15 20 South Village PM Design Hour Project Traffic Turn"Ing Movements Amended 1128106 pale 47 Swift St- SI 29 22 16 CD i °' 1 04 CI) 12 5 L.P. +.7 t 23 Barstow Rd t 13 FEB. 4.53O5 2:59RII FUSS 8& ONEILL "EFRNG e �7 �.19 .Alen Rd ` _*— 22 39 �--�► 6 3354 12 9 32 •K-r- 11 8 -n t flo_ 52414 C4 `z� CD I � - rJ l + q s Scucn'vinage Tr -a ric impact S uc December, 2004 North Drive Site South Drive a .., i 7 ! .' South Village. PM Design Hour Project Traffic Turning Movements Page 96 t 30 TND Engineering December, 2004 South Village Request for Waivers Page 3 of 3 September 27, 2004 Revised January 4, 2005 L. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for )Public Local Streets from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). - Similar issues to !hose outlined in Items .I through L. Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 9.07 Dimensional Standards - 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: Appendix Table C-2 Dimensional Standards - The following waivers are requested to allow greater interaction between the proposed buildings in support of enhancing the fabric of the neighborhood A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 3,920 SF. B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 52%. C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 60%. D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 101 . E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 10' (5' for rear lanes). F. Single Family Rear Side Yard Setback from 10' to 51 . G. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 50%. H. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 65%. I. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. J. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 51 . K. Multi -Family Rear Side Yard Setback from 20' to 5'. ) - re�41Cs4 -F\C_ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2005 Mr. Boucher then moved to approve final plat application #SD-04-50 of University Mall Realty Trust. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion failed 0-6. 3. Continued Public hearing: 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 family, and multi -family dwellings, 2) a 100-student educational facility, and 3) a community building to support a 35-acre farm, 1840 Spear St: The Chair noted receipt of letters from John Anderson (on behalf of the adjacent property owner), Mark Hall (in reply to Mr. Anderson's letter), and Dave Marshall (regarding project details); also a memo from Ms. Hinds dated 29 December 2004, in which she states: "It is the City Council's position that the connector road must be built with the first phase of construction." The Board is also in receipt of photos taken by Mr. Bolton at the applicant's similar project in Stowe. Mr. Marshall outlined the applicant's presentation which included a review of changes, traffic mitigation proposals, stormwater/sewage plans, and approval components. Mr. Belair said the traffic study will take place at the next hearing. It was noted that one recommendation is to straighten Spear Street and put the bike path on the other side to avoid the taking of residents' frontage. The land on the other side is vacant. Mr. Marshall said the applicant is willing to provide a right-of-way on the east side to help residents on the west side. Mr. Marshall then reviewed changes to the plans since the last hearing. On the south connector road, between the "village" and the "ridge," the wetland crossing has been narrowed. This reduces the impacts and provides traffic calming at a 90 degree inter- section. In addition, one of the wetlands has been extended. The number of units in one area has been reduced from 84 to 80, and the multi -family buildings have been reconfigured. The Fire Chief has asked for a modification of "A" Street/"D" Street intersection to be sure response vehicles can move through that intersection without having to take too wide a turn. With regard to ecological restoration, a letter was sent to staff including technical specs on how restoration will be implemented. The city's Sign Ordinance does not allow for the proposed "way -finding" signage proposed. This will have to be worked out with staff and an amendment to the Ordinance. With regard to water, sewage and storm drainage, Mr. Marshall said a 12" main will be brought in to serve water needs. The sanitary sewer will flow by gravity to a collection system on Allen Road and then to the treatment center. Mr. Marshall showed the -2- D EV L,OPMI � 3 REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 20055 location of the pump station which he indicated has adequate capacity for this. The pump station will be privately owned. Stormwater will discharge into 3 different watersheds (Potash, Bartlett Bay, and the majority into Monroe Brook). Mr. Wetzel asked about protection during construction. Mr. Marshall said that is a whole different requirement. Mr. Kupferman asked if it is true that the connecting road to Dorset Farms is not entirely on the applicant's property. Ms. Hinds said the City Attorney has been asked to make certain of this as quickly as possible. Mr. Kupferman asked how much public participation was involved in the City Council's interaction with the developer. Ms. Hinds said there is no agreement on road financing. There will be a discussion at the Council's 18 January meeting. The Council wants a fully open connector road to be built by then end of Phase I of this project. Mr. Bolton noted that in the Stowe project, there are natural features across from some of the homes. He felt this was a very nice touch and is better than having "houses opposing each other." He also felt the project made a good attempt to break things up spatially. He asked how close the Stowe project is to what can be expected in South Burlington. Mr. Scheuer said that was a very small project with not as many housing types. It was also a very constrained site. There will be a more diverse landscape here. Mr. Cummings felt the school would be out of character with the neighborhood and asked if it is fundamental part of the plan. Ms. Barton asked if the city would be a co -applicant for the Midland Avenue crossing. Mr. Marshall said if they are a co-owner, they would have to be. Mr. Marshall then reviewed what remains to be done including John Dietrich's response, a signoff from 4 city department heads (the Water Department has responded and has no "show stoppers"), clearing up the status of the connector road, final signoff on the pump stations, and a final signoff from the Fire Chief. The adjacent property owner's representative, Dori Barton, then made a presentation on the wetlands impacts of this project in answer to the applicant's presentation at the last hearing: Mr. Barton began by reviewing the methodology for the study which included a field survey, review of breeding habitats for several species, surveys made from March, 2003 through June, 2004, and a "trap and release" study. The results of the study were to identify an additional 1.5-2 acres of wet area within the southern portion of the property, to confirm the presence of deer (winter, 2003), to -3- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2005 establish the presence of a hunting ground and travel corridor for bobcat (Ms. Barton showed the location), to confirm a breeding ground for American woodcock and a wild turkey reproduction habitat. Ms. Barton said it is their opinion that the proposed development will result in habitat fragmentation on the property, loss of habitat, loss of connections. There is no doubt that wildlife will cross the proposed road, but it is important to view what is happening in the whole corridor. Animals are moving through the forested area. Ms. Barton said it is wrong to believe you can force wildlife to "our" corridor. Ms. Barton suggested managing the scrubland areas as habitat for woodcock which was identified by the Southeast Quadrant Study as an important species. Ms. Barton then reviewed their specific recommendations as follows: find and show all wetlands, avoid significant wetland and wildlife resources, eliminate wetland crossings, establish biologically relevant buffers, maintain and enhance wildlife corridors, and manage existing early successional scrublands. Ms. Barton showed the Board a letter from the State Wildlife Agency recommending 2 wetland complexes to be protected with no crossings and the recommendation of a 300 foot buffer with housing in front of the site. Mr. Bolton asked what would be affected and what would remain if the project is built as proposed. Ms. Barton said if you lose the corridor, you lose the habitat areas (because of loss of cover, protection, etc.). Mr. Capen said they met with John Austin, State Biologist, and he is very flexible regarding the 300-foot buffer. Mr. Wetzel noted that it would be very hard for amphibians and reptiles to cross the road. A review was then given of the applicant's Habitat Management Proposal. Mr. Smith said this is a "tricky and fickle" process. You need to understand structure, composition of vegetation, soils, climate, ecological forces in the community (fire, winds, etc.), disease and hydrology. He noted that the applicant proposes an appropriate way to go about a restoration; however, some of what they propose to "restore" does not exist in Vermont (oak savannas, for example). Mr. Smith said the applicant does not take into account soils on the site and plant communities not native to the site. He said there is no evidence of any native proscribed burning. What is appropriate is northern hardwood forests (maple, ash, oak) or wet claypine forest. Mr. Smith said burning is not appropriate for this site and is not realistic in a highly developed area. With regard to herbicide application, Mr. Smith said there is very little known of what the applicant wants to do. -4- r DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2005 Mr. Smith said the Great Swamp area is a significant resource that does not have any encroachment by non-native species. He said he would be very cautious about any activity there in light of the absence of such non-native species. Mr. Smith said the problem with the applicant's proposal is that they do not show a detailed knowledge of the site and the plants they are proposing are not native to the site. He stressed that the Great Swamp should be excluded from all restoration. The applicant was asked to respond to this presentation at the next hearing, specifically with regard to burning and excluding the Great Swamp. Mr. Vallee said if the Board follows its own regulations, it will have to make a positive finding with regard to discharge into the wetland. Mr. Boucher then moved to continue Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 until 8 February 2005. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boucher moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 until 8 Feburary 2005. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. 2 Clerk Date -5- Fuss & O'NeW Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Robertson South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning FROM: Jon Dietrich, P.E. Continents and resMnses by Chester 'Rick" Chellman, P.E. DATE: January 4, 2005 RE: Request for Waivers: South Village Preliminary Plan Submittal At the outset, I would like to wint out that all of these waivers were discussed explained and debated at _length with City_ stag -_together witli the related background information in 2002_. Much of the background_ information_ Mr_ Dietrich did not have and his ITE references _(specif cally,_not citingtthe ITE's TND Street Desi n Guidelines Recommended Practice of which_I am the al author indicate, tcrme_ that he does not have this information. This is not a criticism but an i i nt observation. Because of the significant, indeed _stcategic, difTerences that South Vlllage-se ks to create from a design perspective with its street design details. As I have discussed many times previo_uslwith staff; many_o1 th_ewai_v_er rcxluests_proposed_for South Village I % ould not rLxluest 6M a "conventional". subdivision, I will welcome additional discussion on these-ppints_when we meet nc\t week__ I_will also attach amemorandum of_snpp rt that I drafted in. July, 2002 that provides additional supportive information and data (note that the Citv's street standards h—eve changed since 2002, so the particulars, of the �\ai�cr requests _have_since changed as NNell 1. — The following are my comments concerning review of the ReUiest__For Waivers dated September 28, 2004, as submitted by South Village project, as they relate to Planned Residential Developments, Section 15.12. I need to get a copy of the latest Street Hierarchy Plan that references the typical cross - sections before finalizing some of these comments. A. Min. Pavement Width for Collector 1.) 30' to 20' at wetland crossings Could be adequate as long as not on sharp curve, snow is not collected along guardrails, no parking is allowed along section (correct) and City emergency officials (fire, ambulance, police) have no objections due to emergency equipment operation; it is assumed that at these crossing areas there would be a sidewalk or recreation path beside the paved roadway 2.) 28' with parking on 1-side It doesn't appear that there is on -street parking allowed on the BV-66 sections (correct.), On -street parking should not be allowed on sharp curve sections or where corner or stopping sight distance would be impacted. 3.) 20' at bulbouts Where are these iocation57_'lliese are_foundalong the ti t-t,t)I' section in the center of the project along the modified'-collector"route;. C:\Doc-aments and Settines\Ixobertson\Loca1 Settiruts\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK13Kwaiverdiscussion.dog _ ~1 F:AP2(Xg\1008\A10AMEMOR ANL UM.doc Fuss do O'Neill Inc. MEMO Mr. Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 2 4.) 26' for collector routes Could be adequate as long as no parking on street 'llus cross section has stripW parking along, one side, lit, —o there %v ill he seasonal overnight parking; assuming these collector streets will be taken over by the City, the minimum design speed to be used for a local road should be 25 mph, although 30 mph for a collector street should be considered as a minimum design speed. Please see the ITY _ local" and "collector' designations, while still applied tier labeling purposes, do not apply to the more pedestrian -orientation c,1 _e all,, very important element, It would be preferable to have A Street, 1: Street, and portions of D Street a minimum of 28 ft_ wide, where on -street parking is allowed on one side. This is in view of these being public rckids with higher traffic volumes, roadside development (i.e. school, apartments), seasonal snow conditions which will reduce the effective width of the roadway area, and width needed to turn in and out of local street intersections. A street- is a road section, curbed one side only (open_to-the farm side,) anu �a 1ccL in width is more than adequate for two lanes of travel with mixed cyclists. etc. -There will be_adeq_uate.off-strgetWk-ing in the area of this road and any on_street parking will likely be short term and very intcrn ttent. 1he_public portions of is and l) are -proposed to be 26 in width, parkingone_side, and a structural base 28 livt in xvidth, with curbing on one side only. This was a much negotiated compromise_ that_will _provide the City with -the optionwidening of widenithe pavement to 28 feet if it experiences operation difficulties in the future In__my_professional opinion and -ex 'ence, it would be a mistake to widen these streets at this time. B. Mn. Pavement Width For Local Streets i .) 28' to 20' at wetland crossings (see comment for A. 1 above) 2.) 26' with parking on one side Should be adequate, as long as no parking along sharp curve sections, or where corner or stopping sight distance would be impacted. 3.) 24' with no striped parking Adequate if not on sharp curve sections. -Note that one of the proposed intersection turn. xNItich is a te-c intersection with one leg removed. these -are in My_gq)erience, effective traffic caihuinb measwes_provlded.the- street maintains its cross section and is not \+idcnetii. C. Min. Radius of Curves for Collector (500' to 260') Could be adequate, but approaches to curve needs to have appropriate speed zoning and curve warning signs; assumes no significant vertical curves which would impact sight distance; For a 1 CADocuments and Settings\brobettson\Local Settutes"remoorary lntemet Files\OLKl384aiverdiscussion.doy_ . AAI F:\tr2tXW1'009\At0\MRMOR ANDUM.doc Fuss & O' Nei! I=, MEMO Mr. Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 3 30 mph speed, ITE suggests a minimum centerline horizontal curve radius of 300 feet. A 300 ft. minimum radius is suggested for this project._ The calculated value is 260 Iwt. It is common practice to increase this to the=round" 300 IJeet, but this has the effect of encouraging higher vehicular speeds. D_ Mn. Radius of curves for Local Streets (300' to 90' ) See comment for C. above; For speed of 20 mph_ 100 ft_ minimum centerline radius is suggested by ITE The H I'', IN 1) ( ,_i ,r 20 1 L i _,,, h RP); at 25 mph, 180 ft. is minimum radius i_I I E "fNI)= 166' for 25. nn>l1 ; roadway needs to be tree of obstructions to sight distance for roadway vehicles so that stopping sight distance meets the City's design standards (for minimum vertical & horizontal sight distance) E. Mn. Tangent Length between curves for Collector (150' to 50') 100 ft. would be better minimum on collector street; Millilntun taugent_lcaigths between curves - are commonly i , . _opposing horizontal curves with their superelevations-, at 25 nwh and ' 1 he all of South Vil' necessary, nor is superelevation_it is &,,umed that t here are no waivers for the maximum street grades, minimum street grades, and maximum grades within 100 ft. of the line of intersection, per Table 15-1 of the Street Design Standards. C`orrex;t. F. Min. Tangent Length between curves for Local Streets. (100' to 50') Ok as long as speed limit is not more than 25 mph. GMin. distance between centerline offsets for Local streets. (from 20.0' to reduced values) Should be subject to review of specific street traffic volumes and specific offset orientation. Typically 125 ft. would be recommended minimum offset between 1--intersections of two local streets. i cut discuss the particulars of the site i,ut IlcM \\eck. H. Mn. vertical (stopping) sight distance for Collectors (300'to 150') What are the traffic -calming techniques/devices that are being proposed to "ensure" reduced speeds to 25 mph? These teclulrc ues_are;_road \vidths, on -street parking hulk -outs. SUpportiNe uIg_street trees_ pedestrian scale lighting, huildim-, setbacks, and stdcvv�tlk The recomm minimum stopping sight distance for a speed of 25 mph per AASHT'O guidelines i 155 f . This should be held as the minimum. I. Mn. vertical (stopping) sight distance for Local Streets (200'to 150' & 125') Similar comment to h H. above; for 25 mph speed, minimum stopping sight distance should beno less than 155 fee . Please see table; R, page 30 of the ITE Guidelines rLcommetided supping sight distances mph:_107 feet, 25 mph:_ 146' and 30 mph. 196'. J. Mn. horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector (500' to 275') Biggest concern is how the speeds on the village street system can be reduced to desired speed limits. If target speed of 25 mph is allowed as design speed for collectgx.,Fstadway, then minimum corner sight distance (i.e. intersection sight distance) should be280 this would CADocutnents and Settines`.brobertson1coal Settings\Temporary Intemet File-\OLKI38\waiverdisciusiondor� ✓tf+'1 'Pk"1 3. pi In 7;y�� d"r�h(A_ Ufi AA.T rm ' ~1 FT2004\10MAt0\Iv1EMOR l ANDUM.doc & CPN4L4! Inc. MEMO Mr. Brian Robertson January 4, 2005 Page 4 assume there is no on -street parking at or near the approach to the intersection that would impact the clear sight line. K. Mn. horizontal (corner) sight distance for Local Street (300' to 275' & 220' As ut paragraph J. comment, minimum corner sight distance should be 80 eet for a speed of 25 mph. It is important that there be no on -street parking or landscapingrfences that interfere with this clear sight line. Regarding the local lanes and rear lanes (alleys) of the project, the City needs to consider the acceptability of pavement widths with on -street parking for emergency access (e.g. fire truck circulation/access) and snow storage (i.e. resulting cleared pavement width when accounting for snow/ice buildup on sides of roadways). It would be helpful to have the most current site plan which shows the location of what will be "public" streets, along with the typical section codes for all streets in the project. The latest site plan from CEA (sent to me November 10, 2004) is different than the street plan shown in the July 28, 2003 letter by TND Engineering. I'd like to see a street plan for the site that references the location of the Typical Street Sections as shown on plan sheets T4.3, T4.4, T4.5, and T4.6 C: Bruce Hoar, South Burlington DPW Rick Chellman, P.E., TND tS .W4 F AP2004\10MA3 0\MEMOR ANbiJM.dac C\Documents and Set[mes\brobertson\Local Sethn8s Tempora[Y Intemet FiksiOLK138\waiverdmussiondoc ClV!! tI's Irll It�;tlNr AIS0I';Z)rlA1'E`, IINC, 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 January 3, 2005 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application - Narrative Correction Dear Mr. Robertson: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com We understand from staff and members of the Development Review Board that a portion of the 12/27/04 response letter was confusing. We have reviewed the section in question (page 6) and offer the following corrective narrative. "Please note that the wildlife report prepared by Dr. Dave Capen and submitted as part of the Master Plan application provides a majority of the supporting narrative addressing why and where the existing wildlife habitat and connectivity occurs. The management of this area is subject to the requi ements o additional permit amendments for conducting any activities beyond that approved by the City (i.e. road connections, quiet path systems and the initial and on -going maintenance of the restoration program }(which is now in the draft final Restoration Program document submitted under separate coverl). We apologize for any confusion. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm cc: M. Hotgate C11 Let\01243\Master\Correction.wpd CIVIL tl�lr�l�lttitll Ir ����JCI��I'��, UNIC 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 December 27, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application - Site Design Revisions Dear Mr. Robertson. - Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com Based upon the latest wetland delineations and updates to the traffic study, we have made a few changes to the proposed layouts of the three neighborhoods associated with the South Village project. We offer the following summary of changes first by location and then by sheet. 1. South Connector Road - The south connector road between the Village neighborhood and the Ridge neighborhood has been moved to the north approximately 50' to reduce the amount of wetland impact which also provides some additional buffer to the properties to the south. 2. Ridge Neighborhood - This area has been reconfigured to minimize encroachment into the expanded wetland buffers. The number of units has been reduced from 84 to 80. There is no change in the number of units for the other two neighborhoods. 3. A & D Street Intersection - This has been slightly reconfigured to eliminate an acute intersection angle and provide a 90 degree intersection in its place. Cover Sheet - Revised to include a new revision date (the rendering in the center of the sheet has not yet been updated though). Mr. Brian Robertson Page 2of3 December 27, 2004 S-1.0 - The Master Plan Plat has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments and latest traffic volume estimates. S-1.1 - The Master Plan Phasing Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments and latest traffic volume estimates. S-1.2 - The Master Plan Phasing North Plan has been revised to reflect the latest traffic volume estimates. S-1.3 - The Master Plan Phasing South Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments and latest traffic volume estimates. S-1.4 - The Master Plan Phasing East Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments and latest traffic volume estimates. C-2.5 - The Restricted Area Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments. T-4.1 - The Street Hierarchy Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments. C-5.0 - The Sewer and Water Master Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments. C-5.1 - The Grading and Overall Drainage Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments. W-4.0 - The wetland Crossing Plan for the southern roadway between the Ridge and Village neighborhoods has been revised to reflect the latest road adjustments. L-1 - The Rec Path, Trail Network Plan has been revised to reflect the latest road and lot adjustments and minor refinements on the path locations. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 3 of 3 December 27, 2004 We have also attached a copy of the following items in support of the requested updates: 1. A response to Staffs 11-22-04 review memorandum of the Draft Community Land Management Plan. 2. Updated Traffic Impact Study narrative from TND Engineering addressing the issues raised by Fuss & O'Neill and the DRB. 3. A Draft of the proposed Ecological Restoration and Management Program which provides the additional detail requested in the staffs review comments on the program. This completes our summary of the updated information included with this package. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Attachments: Revised Plans (5 Full Size B/W, 8 reduced to 11 "x 17") Response to Memorandum (8 copies) Ecological Restoration and Management Program (8 copies) Traffic Impact Study (8 copies) cc: David Scheuer (w/ enclosures) Rick Chellman (w/ enclosures except traffic study) David Raphael (w/ enclosures except traffic study) CA 1 Let\01243\Master\RobertsonMaster6_wpd South Burlington Fire Depar�rlient 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief September 2, 2004 Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, 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 latest plans for the proposed construction of the South Village project, Phase 1. Below please find listed my general comments concerning this project. 1. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division codes and standards. 2. Automatic sprinklers and alarm system as required by Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division. 3. Number and location of fire hydrants to be determined by the South Burlington Water Department. Actual final spotting of said hydrants to be done jointly with SBFD. 4. The turning radii should be designed for operation of fire apparatus to include our aerial ladder -tower. I have previously provided this information to the developers and look for them to certify to me that their designs will accommodate our vehicles. 5. The road widths within this property should be properly sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus to include our aerial ladder -tower. I still have some concern that the roads of 20 feet in width or less could be a problem for our vehicle and department needs. 6. Tree heights in front of some of the buildings could block potential rescue point windows. Page-2 As I have indicated in our many previous meetings I think that this is a great project for the City of South Burlington. As I said before none of these problems are insurmountable. I think that I can easily work with the developers to agree on reasonable alternative solutions to the potential fire protection problems. rely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief BILI. SZYMANSKI, City Engineer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, V'F 05403 846-41o6 (phone) 846-4101 (fax) COMMENTS South Village Communities Spear Street Phase I 9/2/04 i. Spear Street is 4 rods (66') in width. Plans show it as 8o ft. 2. Public streets should all have concrete curbs, concrete sidewalks, and drainage system. Private utilities -power, telephone, and T.V. should be placed outside of the street R.O. W. Water mains shall be centered within the grass strip with curb stops in a one foot strip at edge of R.O.W. Trees must not be planted on top of water mains. 3. Bike path should be constructed in Phase I. At least that part in the Phase I area. 4. Down stream sewer mains shall be evaluated by the project engineer for capacity to handle the added flow. 5. Sewage pumping station shall be privately owned and maintained by the home owners. City Pollution Control Superintendent shall review the design. 6. Sewer manholes must be at locations that are accessible to mobile cleaning equipment. 7. Street lights shall be shown on the plans and installed in first phase. 8. The gas mains shall be shown on the plans. 9. Each corner lot shall have a 20' x 20' sight easement. io. Developer shall furnish and install all street signs including traffic and parking signs. -1- ,r BILL SZYMANSKI, City Engineer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 846-4io6 (phone) 846-4101 (fax) 1i. Allen Road — Spear Street intersection traffic signals shall be Econlite or approved equal and detail plans submitted for review and approval. Installation should be in Phase I. 12. All buildings with basements shall have footing drains connecting to storm sewer or drainage ditch. They shall be shown on the plans. 13. Water and sewer connections shall be shown on the plans. 14. Road gravel base shall be 18 inches thick with 4 inch thick bituminous (2 1/2 base, 11/2 surface) road surface. 15. Bike path typical section shall be shown on the plans. Also profile, grades, alignment, curve data. 16. Water, sewer and drainage lines within private streets shall be privately maintained by the home owners. 17. As -built drawings shall be prepared by Civil Engineering Associates. 18. Plans shall include a final grading plan (2 ft contours) in the building area. ig. Tree planting plan shall show all water mains. There shall be a minimum clearance of 5 feet. 20.All curb work shall be concrete and delineated on the typical sections. 21. Sewer lines shall be bedded in 3/4 inch crushed stone only. 22. Pipe for drainage shall be plastic or concrete or approved equal. W4C South Village Communities Landscape Architect: 8/11/04 Land -Works Middlebury VT The species selection and distribution looks good overall. Following is a number of recommendations: 1. The species and cultivar of cherry needs to be specified 2. The clay soils in this area of the city are often slightly alkaline and for this reason Freeman Maple may be a better choice than Red Maple as it is less apt to suffer micronutrient deficiency. Red Maple is acceptable provided that soil tests show the soils to be acidic 3. I wouldn't recommend planting A -Street entirely with `Princeton' and `Liberty' elm. Both trees are American Elm cultivars, which have shown resistance to Dutch Elm disease, but susceptibility could still become an issue. `Liberty' Elm has also shown susceptibility to elm yellows disease. `Accolade' Elm is a possible substitution for `Liberty' Elm 4. I'm uncertain from the plant key which trees are Japanese Tree Lilac and which are Columnar Red Maple Specifications I. Tree Planting Detail should be included 2. Add specification that no tree planting shall be undertaken until finish grading is completed 3. Any fertilizer and lime applications must be based on a soil test. The rates recommended in the specifications are excessive 4. Add a clause stating that all street tree plantings shall conform to the Arboricultural Specifications and Standards of Practice of the City of South Burlington (available through the City Planning Office or the City Arborist) South "�rlington Fire DeP artInt 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief October 1, 2004 Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village Project Spear Street Dear Juli: It has come to my attention that the Development Review Board is getting ready to OK the master plan for the South Village project. I was asked by a member of the DRB if I had anything that still needed to be included in that plan such as opposition to road widths and such. My position on most of my original objections has not changed. I was of the opinion that the DRB had seen all of the written comments which I have made since the beginning of the project. I have not been approached by the developers or any of their representatives with specific changes which they have made to address my concerns nor has it been pointed out to me or highlighted for me to comment on. Because these plans have changed so many times and because there have been so many versions it would be helpful if they were able to highlight specifically for me any of the changes which they have made to address my concerns. Other than viewing a movie with the developers about fire protection in TND's, they have had no rebuttal to my concerns. As I have previously stated I support this project and will do whatever I can do to assist the developers in making it happen. I guess at this point I just want you to be clear that all of my cumulative concerns about this project still remain. Please let me know if I can provide you with any further information. Sin lrlyn,'�� Douglas S. Brent Chief of Fire and EMS August 1, 2002 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, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief I 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 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. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief 1 September 2, 2004 Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, 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 latest plans for the proposed construction of the South Village project, Phase 1. Below please find listed my general comments concerning this project. 1. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division codes and standards. 2. Automatic sprinklers and alarm system as required by Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division. 3. Number and location of fire hydrants to be determined by the South Burlington Water Department. Actual final spotting of said hydrants to be done jointly with SBFD. 4. The turning radii should be designed for operation of fire apparatus to include our aerial ladder -tower. I have previously provided this information to the developers and look for them to certify to me that their designs will accommodate our vehicles. 5. The road widths within this property should be properly sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation of fire apparatus to include our aerial ladder -tower. I still have some concern that the roads of 20 feet in width or less could be a problem for our vehicle and department needs. 6. Tree heights in front of some of the buildings could block potential rescue point windows. Page-2 As I have indicated in our many previous meetings I think that this is a great project for the City of South Burlington. As I said before none of these problems are insurmountable. I think that I can easily work with the developers to agree on reasonable alternative solutions to the potential fire protection problems. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief September 2, 2004 Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, 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 proposed Master Plan for the South Village project. I have kept most of my comments generalized as each phase of the project will most likely present its own specific issues. Road widths and turning radii should be monitored throughout. 2. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of hoselines, portable ladders and other equipment. 3. Hydrants are generally not an issue as they are situated to comply with the city water regulations. 4. The need for sprinklers and alarm systems will generally follow the Labor and Industry Fire Prevention codes. At this time these are my main concerns. Should you need any further information please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief UR SOUTH B LINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT FicC c. 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 MEMORANDUM To: Brian Robertson From: Jay Nadeau r' Date: January 3, 2005 Re: South Village Master Plan The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the Master Plan for the South Village project as submitted by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. This Department agrees in concept to the Master Plan Design, but recognizes the need to work with the Engineer on the specifics of the water distribution system. I will be preparing a follow-up letter to Civil Engineering Associates addressing certain improvements to the water distribution system for this project, that can be included in future plan designs. H: Plan reviews: South Village Master plan CIAL ENG311IsIRI IG ASS OAis15, INC. 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 December 30, 2004 Mr. Jay Nadeau, Superintendent City of South Burlington Water Department Queen City Park Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village Water Distribution System Dear Mr. Nadeau: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com In accordance with the request of Mr. Brian Robertson from the City Planning Office, we are submitting a set of the plans depicting the proposed water distribution system for the South Village project located of Spear Street at the Allen Road intersection. We are close to completing the distribution and fire flow modeling report which shows that between 1,400 and 1,600 GPM is available for fire fighting requirements while maintaining the 20 psi minimum within the system. This information will be forwarded to you shortly for your review and comment. 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 Plans Sheets C6.0 through C6.6, C9.2 cc: Brian Robertson (no enclosures) CEA File 01243.00 (no enclosures) CAI Let\01243\Master\Nadeau.wpd CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSUClPATES. INC4 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 January 31, 2005 Megan Moir Heindel & Noyes 434 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05401 Re: South Village South Burlington, VT Dear Megan: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: I just wanted to follow up on our discussion last week regarding the South Village project, and to make sure you have all the materials you need for review of the stormwater modeling. On Friday, I hand -delivered a copy of plan sheet H-1 to your office, which shows the watershed areas used within the stormwater model. You should also have received copies of two HydroCad models (pre and post development) for the portion of our site draining toward Bartlett Brook. As we discussed, it should be relatively simple to incorporate this model information into your Bartlett Brook model as a link. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions you may have, or if additional materials would be helpful for your review. Respectfully, Paul M. Boisvert Staff Engineer CC Brian Robertson, Assistant City Planner (South Burlington) Michelle Holgate, Retrovest Properties \pmb H&N follow-up.doc CIVI! twh IGII IEt",�Il IG ANSO 1500r.IAfE_S, IINro, 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 February 1 ', 2005 Mr. William Szymanski City Engineer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Subject: South Village Sanitary Sewer System Investigation and Design Study Dear Mr. Szymanski: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com In accordance with you request, an analysis of the sanitary sewer collection system for the proposed South Village Residential Development has been performed. This new development is to be located to the lot east of the intersection of Spear St. and Allen Rd. The sanitary sewer throughout the development will be collected by a system of gravity sewer lines and sanitary manholes, which will accumulate at the primary sewer pump station located at the low point of the system (see attachment A). The pump station will then feed a force main, which runs to an existing gravity sewer main located on Allen Rd. that is collected at the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. The purpose of this investigation is to determine if this existing gravity sewer infrastructure has the ability to accept additional capacity of flow from this proposed project. Existing Conditions This existing gravity sewer main is part of a larger sewer collection system (see attachment B). The existing main line, which will be directly affected by the additional effluent produced from the South Village development, was surveyed and inspected for physical condition, existing size and slopes, as well as current and maximum capacity. Attachment C details the existing conditions of the sewer main and structures connecting the South Village force main to the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. All pipes and structures appeared to be in good physical condition upon visual inspection. Analysis Once the pipe slopes were calculated, a field investigation was performed at critical structures, which either had minimum slope values or were located at critical points within the system These structures include SMH's 5, 6, 11, 16-18, 23, 27-30 and 34. Flow data was collected at these structures at peak use time periods (between 7:00-7:30 AM) on various days (see attachment D). This chart provides the measured depth of effluent at the aforementioned structures, as well as a calculated percentage of flow through each pipe using open channel hydraulics. This chart also calculates the new capacity at the critical points within the system after adding the additional flow produced by the pump station of the new development. To determine the additional flow from this pump station, the values from the Wastewater Pump Station Analysis for the main pump station were used (see attachment E). Eindan�� All structures measured were well below full capacity conditions, and in fact, after adding the proposed additional flow from the South Village project, no point in the system would be running at over 40% capacity. There were two points within the system with similarly high capacity values after introducing the proposed additional flow. The gravity sewer line between SMH's 23 and 24 represent the highest proposed capacity at 39%, in part due to the additional flow, shallow existing gradient and small 8" diameter. The sewer line between SMH's 34 and 35 has a proposed capacity of 35%, mainly due to the high existing flows, which stems from this line being the first shallow gravity piping section after a major collection structure. Treatment Capacity In terms of treatment capacity, the Bartlett Bay Treatment Facility itself currently runs between 0.5 to 0.6 mgd, with a maximum capacity of 1.25 mgd. Full build out capacity of this treatment facility is roughly 1.6 mgd. The new South Village development is expected to generate around 74,780 GPD, based upon the wastewater Pump Station Analysis (attachment E), creating a new effluent total of between 0.58 to 0.68 mgd to be treated, well within the capacity of the facility. We appreciate the assistance of Mr. Jim Marshall from the City of South Burlington Public Works Department in providing all of the technical information regarding the exiting sanitary sewer collection system and the Bartlett Bay Treatment Facility. This concludes our assessment of the sanitary sewer collection system for the proposed South Village Residential Development. Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosures: Attachments A-E cc: CEA file #01243 (w/ Enclosures) All work to be performed In accordance with the Specifications and Details for the installatlon of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Dwned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, and the Village of Jericho. Details should - be modified to the above reference specifications. i .............................. o r j ' E � �,••' � I No It It �. _ . I : j � - Luwl hum_: � � ''' � •, •, • '� 1 �.. 1 CONNECT FORCE MAIN - EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER MAIN SEE SITE PLANFOR j ♦ I j I ' •Y 1 • I EXACT LOCATION i •• yy Of i l • . r4tu� fyz s :rin j L----- - -- --- GRAPHIC SCALE ••• ( IN inch 1 — 200 It. - 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: C E' CNVII ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC, P.O.9OX 485 SHELBURNE, Vr 05482 '2aR513Y FM1Y 90298i 21" vec. mvw.cMH can OWN AWY M APPNOM DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: I" 4AgEPL4A#V6SKqQhF=T LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVILLE, IN ONE HYt CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, Vr 7RAFHC EAGNEER TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH LAMLASYW ANCAY7FCr LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILLAGE rI, n. rI I n I.,.. Vr,. n • I SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT LEGEND [� SEWER WATER a LOCATION MAP L" = 3000' DATE I CNECM eETISION SEWER + WATER MASTER PLAN DATE DPAIONr, NUNDU AUGUST, 2004 - 200' C6.0 PAW. NO. 01243 ar�q� s'R jr 77/1 9„y OR UQ try: - •� Z v s � o •� 1 a . }' _ � ~ G �F I� t• Q - �, ~ d• � JA/8N EARri � t 't �t 4 T a• Hall OR Ri Ire 14ILL G �� DR_ r YArtDO pR 1-i N t Q all UVM 4 fy 4- -fame o „rtA LT Alva. y 0 0M t z n t rCLT �'� ►rev sT!►• ,� i i yA Allow > r i i i ► wtrwWWA CA SIC Ar D • 2 � , is t� I - SHgLDURttQ' 1r0Aia � . .- � "�' �u yu'''" 1 - •r P~ STM vb r ftWAti •+IIND�; '7'• ■ w: r �5 ,.�.. A,A. .. ADastf ►OrF+ACI et+tazC ARMY Al glryen•:• It' i1� IC n� .�1 r J✓ I HI�rAeoRp1 ~ � N / 0 ,! 4 I Rw�r+� �e>-�meM'� ��ci�•��-mot � �•-= 17Rtvie. '. 1 01243 - Retrovest Existing Gravity Sewer Line Inverts, Distances, and Slopes. Level Run - JSO/WGS 07/21/03 TBM Control Point #2 - Capped Rebar - Elev.=367.67' Description Rim Elev. In Out Inv. In I-n-v-.-0-`utj Slope Dist. Horiz. Dist. Pipe Size Pipe Slope TBM 367.67 - - - _ I_ - - _ SMH 1 348.68 6.75 6.80 341.93 341.881 280.00 279.61 8.00 0.066 SMH 2 333.97 10.65 10.75 323.32 323.22 271.00 269.61 8.00 0.084 SMH 3 306.56 6.10 6.15 300.46 300.41 53.30 53.05 8.00 0.068 SMH 4 301.43 4.65 4.70 1296.78 296.73 275.30 274.59 8.00 0.072 SMH 5 281.67 4.70 4.75 1276.97 276.92 70.50 70.50 8.00 0.008 SMH 6 281.31 4.95 9.70 1276.36 271.61 224.90 224.89 8.00 0.012 SMH 7 278.91 10.00 10.10 268.91 268.81 211.10 210.84 8.00 0.050 SMH 8 268.34 10.05 10.15 258.29 258.191 269.50 269.35 8.00 0.032 SMH 9 259.43 9.95 10.10 249.48 249.33 1 300.80 300.69 8.00 0.026 SMH 10 251.38 9.90 9.95 241.48 241.43 239.60 239.54 8.00 0.024 SMH 11 245.91 10.30 10.40 235.61 235.51 258.70 258.61 8.00 0.007 SMH 12 238.90 520 525 233.70 233.65 39.00 39.00 8.00 0.087 SMH 12A 238.59 8.35 8A5 1230.24 230.14 132.00 131.92 8.00 0.031 SMH 13 234.05 8.05 8.10 1226.00 225.95 210.00 209.90 8.00 0.055 SMH 14 227.46 13.10 13.20 214.36 214.26 305.50 305.34 8.00 0.023 SMH 15 217.64 10.30 10.35 207.34 207.29 167.60 167.58 8.00 0.030 SMH 16 215.35 13.10 13.20 202.25 202.15 106.30 106.30 8.00 0.006 SMH 17 214.66 13.10 13.20 201.56 201.46 217.00 217.00 8.00 0.004 SMH 18 213.84 13.30 13.40 200.54 200.44 248.30 248.18 8.00 0.012 SMH 19 206.23 8.75 8.85 1197.48 197.38 260.40 260.10 8.00 0.053 SMH 20 193.74 10.10 10.20 183.64 183.54 - 180.00 8.00 0.054 SMH 22 182.28 8.40 8.45 1173.88 173.83 - 252.00 8.00 0.069 SMH 23 165.04 8.50 8.55 156.54 156.49 - 142.00 8.00 0.003 SMH 24 163.06 7.05 7.25 156.01 155.81 - 76.00 8.00 0.073 SMH 25 160.64 10.35 10.40 150.29 150.24 - 282.00 12.00 0.006 SMH 26 155.68 7.20 7.30 148.48 148.38 - 244.00 12.00 0.008 SMH 27 154.05 7.55 7.65 146.50 146.40 - 215.00 12.00 0.002 SMH 28 152.19 6.20 6.20 1145.99 145.99 - 215.00 12.00 0.001 SMH 29 152.81 7.00 7.00 1145.81 145.81 - 246.00 12.00 0.005 SMH 30 152.18 7.50 7.50 1144.68 144.68 - 210.00 12.00 0.001 SMH 31 151.63 7.20 7.20 1144A3 144.43 - 210.00 15.00 0.002 SMH 33 151.91 8.00 8.00 1143.91 143.91 349.70 349.49 15.00 0.033 SMH 34 139.67 7.30 7.30 1132.37 132.371 348.90 348.79 15.00 0.017 SMH 35 130.78 4.20 4.20 1126.58 126.581 35.60 35.60 18.00 0.037 SMH 36 1 130.38 5.10 5.10 1125.28 125.28 - - 1 18.00 - 01243 - Retrovest Existing Gravity Sanitary Sewer Line Flow Investigation Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates Measurements taken represent average centerline depths of flow in inches. Structures used in the investigation were chosen based on location within the system and pipes having shallow slopes. All measurements taken were done between 7:00-7:30 AM on their respective days. Date 11/24/04 12/8/04 12/22/04 Structure m (ft/ft) Avg. (in) Pipe Dia. (in) y/D Surface Diameter (in) Area of Pipe (in A2) SMH 5 0.008 0.00 0.00 <0.10 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 50.24 SMH 6 0.012 0.00 <0.10 <0.10 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 50.24 SMH 11 0.007 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8.00 0.06 3.80 50.24 SMH 16 0.006 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8.00 0.06 3.80 50.24 SMH 17 0.005 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 8.00 0.09 4.50 50.24 SMH 18 0.012 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 0.13 5.20 50.24 SMH 23 0.005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 0.13 5.20 50.24 SMH 27 0.005 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 12.00 0.13 7.75 113.04 SMH 28 0.005 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 12.00 0.15 8.50 113.04 SMH 29 0.005 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.25 12.00 0.19 9.00 113.04 SMH 30 0.005 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.50 12.00 0.21 9.50 113.04 SMH 34 0.017 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 15.00 0.30 13.75 176.63 Structure Effluent Area (in A2) Capacity (%) Theta (radians) P (ft) Rh (ft) Q (cfs) Qt (gpm) New Capacity (%) SMH 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 #DIV/0! SMH 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 #DIV/0! SMH 11 3.14 0.06 0.99 0.65 0.03 0.32 475.15 0.20 SMH 16 1 3.14 0.06 0.99 0.65 0.03 0.30 464.38 0.22 SMH 17 4.71 0.09 1.19 0.77 0.04 0.32 472.68 0.31 SMH 18 6.28 0.13 1.42 0.91 0.05 0.54 571.10 0.30 SMH 23 6.28 0.13 1.42 0.91 0.05 0.35 485.63 0.39 SMH 27 14.13 0.13 1.40 1.35 0.07 1.03 791.03 0.21 SMH 28 16.49 0.15 1.57 1.50 0.08 1.06 806.75 0.25 SMH 29 21.20 0.19 1.70 1.60 0.09 1.20 869.32 0.30 SMH 30 23.55 0.21 1.83 1.71 0.10 1.23 884.07 0.33 SMH 34 52.99 0.30 2.32 2.60 0.14 4.62 2401.53 0.35 *'' P=Wetted Perimeter, Rh=Hydrualic Radius, Q=Flow Wastewater Pump Station Analysis South Village Main Pump Station #1 July 15, 2004 Design Conditions Design Flow 72,380 GPD Infiltration GPD 20% Municipal Credit Total Design Flow 74,780 GPD Average Daily Flow 77.90 GPM Peaking Factor Peak Flow 327.16 GPM Required Storage 18,695 gallons Storage Provided 20,000 gallons Force Main Dia. Inches Min. Cleansing Velocity FPS Min. Pumping Rate 220.19 GPM Chosen Pumping rate GPM Length of FM feet Friction Losses 13.37 feet High Point of FM feet Low elev. in PS feet Elevation Change 35.00 feet Minor headlosses 4.00 feet Residual 0.00 feet rlr H 52.37 fee:i Pump Cycle Storage AC, Gallons Run Cycle 7.14 Minutes Wet Well Detention Time 23.11 Minutes Pump Efficiency % Pump Size 7.27 Hp System Curve GPM TDH 300 50.2 330 52.4 350 53.9 400 58.1 Hydromatic SFPX, 8.2511 Impeller, 7.5 HP single phase, 1750 RPM. CAVIL ENGINEERING X:301'E'00 CAAH", 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 February 1", 2005 Mr. Gregory Bostock, Region 1 Manager Water Supply Division Agency of Natural Resources The Old Pantry 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0403 Re: Request for Public Water System Permit to Construct South Village Development Project South Burlington, Vermont Dear Mr. Bostock: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com South Village Communities, LLC are proposing to permit the infrastructure in support of a multi -use project located along Spear St in the City of South Burlington. This project will include several different components of residential development, including apartment complexes, condominiums, town and single-family homes within the project area. Since this project proposes the placement of additional hydrants and the replacement and extension of portions of the existing City of South Burlington water distribution system, the applicant is seeking a Construction Permit for the improvements herein described. The project is located on Spear Street directly to the east of the intersection of Spear Street and Allen Road. The project area is generally limited by Spear Street on the west, adjacent properties to the south, an existing wetland to the east, and adjacent properties to the north. Please find enclosed one set of plans, a completed application form and a check in the amount of $616.80 (62,145 GPD design capacity) for the permit application fee. This represents an application for Phase I only. The information below follows the numbering system found in Appendix A of the Vermont Water Supply Rule - Chapter 21 for the "Engineer's Report". 1.2.1 General Information: a) Name and Address of Official Owner. South Village Communities, LLC 70 South Winooski Ave. Burlington, VT 05401 b) Identification of Area: The proposed service area can be seen on the Water Master Plan included within the attached design plans. c) Existing Water Works: The existing water works reviewed in this report is the City of South Burlington distribution system, which receives its water from the Champlain Water District (CWD). The portion of the system to be tied into is a stubbed 12" diameter ductile iron line in good condition on the south side of Midland Avenue within the Dorset Farms community. We have enclosed a plan (see Attachment A), provided by the Champlain Water District, depicting the recorded utility as -built drawing of the portion of Midland Avenue where the new connection will be made. This existing line is currently fed directly by the CWD storage tank located at the Vermont National (Economou Farms) Country Club project along Dorset Street. d) Letter of Allocation: A letter of allocation from the City of South Burlington is enclosed (see Attachment B). e) Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by extending a series ,of 8" and 12" ductile iron CL 52 lines a total of approximately 16,755 feet (10,305 feet of 8" and 6,450 feet of 12"). There will be approximately 7,600 feet of service lines throughout the system, varying in size dependent on the structure that will be serviced. Twenty- six (26) new hydrants will be installed off of the proposed distribution system extension. In addition, all structures containing more than 3 units will have a full sprinkler system installed. This will include all. of the condominium and apartment complexes. 1.2.2 Extent of Water Works System: a) Nature and extent of area to be served: The area to be served includes approximately 225 acres of land in the Southeast Quadrant District part of South Burlington. The project will include the uses as outlined in Attachment C. b) Provisions for extending water system: Proposed Expansion - The water system improvements associated with this project are designed to serve the proposed buildings as depicted. The new 12" Class 52 ductile iron water main will run westerly from Midland Avenue along the proposed Midland Avenue extension and be distributed throughout the development within the major road right-of-ways as depicted on Attachment D through the use of 12" and 8" D.I. water mains. Smaller roads that do not contain a water main as shown on Attachment D will. be serviced by smaller diameter service lines. Included in the extension. of the water system is the installation of an additional 26 new fire hydrants throughout the development. Future Expansion — Three points of future connection wili be made available, correlating to the three development entrance points along Spear Street. Currently, these connections cannot be made in the traditional manner due to the fact that system pressures vary greatly between the existing system along Spear Street and the existing system that the project will tie into at Midland Avenue. The middle of these three connection points will be completed with the use of a pressure -reducing valve. The other two points will not be connected, but available for future connections. These three tie in points do not represent capacity for future expansions, but provide the ability to create additional internal loops within the distribution system by connecting to the existing water distribution system along Spear Street. It should be noted that although the water system model was performed assuming full build out, phases II and III of this project are not included within this application. c) Future requirements: As noted above, the potential to connect to the existing Spear Street water distribution system will be available in the future, through the use of pressure reducing valves, equalizers and/or system changes. 1.2.3 Alternate Plans: There are currently no alternate plans for this proposed project. 1.2.4 Design Criteria: a), c) Not applicable. d) Reservoir Area: The existing CWD storage tank at Vermont National located on Dorset Street has a design storage capacity of 2,000,000 gallons. The base of the tank is at elevation 430 feet with a current overflow elevation of 524 feet. However, work is in progress to increase the size of this storage tank, raising the overflow elevation to 559 feet. This work will is scheduled to be finished by spring 2005. Once completed, the normal operating levels within the tank will range from 535 feet to 555 feet. This tank serves much of Dorset Street within the City of South Burlington. d) Average and maximum day demands: It is estimated that this development will require an average day demand of 62,145 GPD and a maximum day demand of 124,290 GPD (double the average day demand) for Phase I. The average and maximum day demands assuming full build out are 121,950 GPD and 243,900 GPD respectively. Calculations cw.-i viewed within Attachment I. e) Existing and proposed services: There are no existing water services associated with this proposed project. The proposed services will include individual water service lines to all single- family and town homes. As well as 8" service lines to each of the apartment/condominium buildings located throughout the development. f) Fire fighting requirements: See enclosed engineering study entitled "Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows" (Attachment F). g)-1) Not applicable. 1.2.5 Soil and Groundwater Conditions: a) Character of the soil for water main installation: The existing soils are mapped by the Soil Conservation Service as being Vergennes clay, Georgia stony loam, Farmington loam and Covington silty clay. With the exception of the Georgia stony loam, these are heavy soils with a high groundwater table. b) Soil conditions for proposed structures: The soil conditions for the proposed structures are similar to those to be experienced in the installation of the water mains. c) The water table is variable in depth. 1.2.6 Water Use Data: a) Not applicable. b) Present consumption and project demands: The total proposed average daily demand for phase I is 62,145 GPD with a correlating peak demand of 124,290 GPD as outlined in section 1.2.4 d). These numbers increase to 121,950 GPD and 243,900 GPD respectively, upon full build out. The maximum fire flow demand is 1,000 GPM for the one- and two-family dwellings based on the A. W. W.A.'s Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection manual. For more detailed information, see the enclosed engineering study entitled "Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows" (Attachment F). c) Unusual Occurrences: There are no unusual occurrences expected not already addressed in this report. 1.2.7 Hydraulic Analysis: See enclosed engineering study entitled "Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows" (Attachment F). Peak demand flow for the proposed development has been projected to be 181 GPM for Phase I and 390 GPM for full build out (see Attachment E). Utilizing the Fire Flow Field Report completed by the Champlain Water District (see Attachment G), the static pressure of the 12" water main at the end of Midland Avenue was found to be 55 PSI. The residual pressure when the line was flowing at 1,087 GPM was 47 PSI. The domestic service lines have been sized so as not to create greater than a 10 PSI loss under peak flow conditions to the services within the building. 1.2.8 Fire Flow Requirements: a) Requirements of the Insurance Services Office: See enclosed engineering study entitled "Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows' (Attachment F). b) Fire flows to be made available: See enclosed engineering study entitled "Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows" (Attachment F). c) Sprinkler type and connection: Any structure containing more than 3 units will have a full sprinkler system installed. This will include all of the condominium and apartment complexes throughout the development. Each structures sprinkler system will be fed off of proposed 8" D.I. service lines. 1.2.9 Sewerage System Availability The sanitary sewer throughout the development will be collected by a system of gravity sewer lines and sanitary manholes, which will accumulate at the primary sewer pump station located at the low point of the system. The pump station will then feed a force main, which runs to an existing gravity sewer main located on Allen Road that is collected by the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility. 1.2.10 Source of Water Supply The existing water supply will be from the City of South Burlington's distribution system, which receives its water from the Champlain Water District. 1.2.11 Proposed Treatment Processes There are no proposed treatment processes associated with this application. 1.2.12 through 1.2.16 Not Applicable. 1.3 Plans for Construction: Enclosed for your review is one set of plans depicting the proposed improvements. 1.4 Design Specifications: The design specifications for this project are included as part of the design plans. This completes the "Engineers Report" for the proposed expansion of the City of South Burlington distribution system. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosures: Application Applicatioln Fee Design Plana (one set) Last of Attachments Attachments A - I (one copy) cc: D. Scheuer (w/o enclosures) E. Christianson (w/o enclosures) M Holgate (w/ enclosures) J. Nadeau (w/ enclosures) CEA file #01243 C:TROJECT3\01243-SOUTH-VIUAGE\WATER STUDY.DOC List of Attachments Existing As -built of Midland Avenue ......................... A Letter of Allocation..............................................B Multi -use Site Plan...............................................0 Water Master Plan................................................D Water Demand Calculations .................................... E Determination of Required- and Available Fire Flows ....... F Champlain Water District Fire Flow Field Report ........... G Water Model Analysis Results (KYPIPE)....................H Water and Wastewater Design Flow Summary ...............I 01243 - South Village Water Demand Assessment Prepared by Civil Engineering Asociates January 13th, 2005 Design methodology for Peak Demand calculations in accordance with AWWA's "Sizing Water Service Lines & Meters' manual Design methodology for Average and Maximum Daily Demands in accordance with State of Vermont "Water Supply Rules Peak Demand for Tvnical Home/Townhome Fixture Fixture Value (35 psi) No. of Fixtures Fixture Value tub 8 2 16 kitchen sink 3 1 3 lavatory 4 2 8 shower 4 0 0 wash sink 4 2 1 8 dish washer 5 1 5 washing machine 5 1 5 hose 6 1 6 TOTAL 51 Number of Units 179 TOTAL Fix. Units 9129 Probable Demand for Homes/Townhomes @ 9,129 fix. Units (Fig. 4.5) = 310 gpm = 1 73 gpm/unit Peak Demand for Tvvical Ai3artment/Condo Unit Fixture Fixture Value (35 psi) No. of Fixtures Fixture Value tub 8 1 8 kitchen sink 3 1 3 lavatory 4 2 8 shower 4 1 4 wash sink 4 1 4 dish washer 5 1 5 washing machine 5 1 per 6 1 hose 6 1 per 6 1 IUTAL :34 Number of Units 160 TOTAL Fix. Units 5440 Probable Demand for Apartment/Condos @ 5,440 fix. Units (Fig. 4.5) = 80 gpm = 0.5 gpm/unit Average and Maximum Daily Demand for Development Average Daily Demand Single Family Home (3 Bedrooms) = 150 gpd (3 bedrooms) (0.9 low fixture reduction) = 405 gpd Apart./Condo. (2 Bedrooms) = 75 gpd (2 people per bedroom) ( 2 bedrooms) (0.9 reduction) = 270 gpd Ave. Daily Demand for Phase I = 405 gpd (84 units) + 270 gpd (752 units) = 53,460 gpd Ave. Daily Demand for Full Build Out (Phases 1-III) = 405 gpd (179 units) + 270 gpd (160 units) = 115,695 gpd Maximum Daily Demand Max. Daily Demand for Phase I = 53,460gpd (2) = 106,920 gpd Max. Daily Demand for Full Build Out = 115,695 gpd (2) = 231,390 gpd Determination of Required and Available Fire Flows Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates January 18`h, 1005 Purpose The South Village Communities, LLC is proposing to create the infrastructure for the construction of a new residential development project. The proposed project will include several different components of residential development, including apartment complexes, condominiums, town and single-family homes. The project is located on Spear Street directly to the east of the intersection of Spear Street and Allen Road. The project area is generally limited by Spear Street on the west, adjacent properties to the south, an existing wetland to the east, and adjacent properties to the north. The purpose of this study is to identify the existing conditions and to determine the available fire flow relative to the proposed water system improvements. In addition, an analysis of the fire flow requirements for each of the proposed buildings was undertaken to determine if the available flows were adequate to properly protect the proposed structures. Fire Flow Requirements Automatic Sprinkler System - It has been assumed that an automatic sprinkler system will be installed in all of the proposed buildings with greater than 2-3 units. Standpipe System - Standpipe systems are required: 1. In all buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of the fire department vehicle access. 2. In all buildings where the any portion of the building floor is more than 400 feet of travel from the nearest point of fire department vehicle access. Due to the fact that no structure within this development meets either of these criteria, standpipes will not be included in the design of this fire flow system. Design Flow Summary For this project we have assumed that structures containing more than 3 units, namely the apartment and condominium complexes, will include a full sprinkler system. Standpipe systems will not be required. The peak domestic flows under full build out for this project were estimated using A.W.W.A.'s "Sizing Water Lines & Meters" and determined to be 390 GPM under peak conditions (310 GPM for the 1-3 unit structures and 80 GPM for the 4-12 unit structures). See Attachment C for projected design use and Attachment E for calculations. In addition, the water system analysis was performed assuming full build out of the proposed project. 2 Determination of available Flow Existing Conditions — In order to provide an understanding of the existing system, a Fire Flow Field Report (see Attachment G) was performed by the Champlain Water District on 5/10/04 at the hydrant closest to the new connection point located on Midland Avenue. The results of the field report were used to produce an accurate system curve at this inflow point to the new development. Methodology - To determine the available fire flow, a derivation of the Hazen Williams formula was used where: (Allowable Pressure Drop)o.sa Available Flow = Measured Flowx (Observed Pressure Drop) 0*54 The allowable pressure drop from the static pressure of 55 psi would be approximately 35 psi (20 psi residual). Using this information, as well as the measured flow and observed pressure drop from the field report, the following system curve was derived: Description Flow (GPM) Pressure (psi) Static 0 55 Fire flow 42 1087 QZo 20 1856 For this project, the proposed end user point would be the connection point of the water main extension into the existing water main (see design plans). It should be noted that in order to accurately determine the available flow, the section of water main between the proposed end user point and the existing storage tank was incorporated into the design system. Existing demand between these two points was taken into consideration when creating the proposed model. Hydraulic Analysis A computer model of the proposed water main extensions was created utilizing KYPIPE. This model utilized a friction coefficient, C = 130, for the new pipes and C values of 130 for the existing pipes, based upon the fact that the existing water mains are relatively new. The model was slightly conservative in assigning the inside diameters of the existing and proposed Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. Existing Conditions The pressures within the South Burlington water distribution system are primarily regulated by the water level in the Vermont National Country Club storage tank. This tank serves portions of South Burlington along Dorset Street. The base of the tank is at elevation 430 feet and rises to an existing overflow elevation of 524 feet. However, work is in progress to increase the size of this storage tank, raising the overflow elevation to 559 feet. This work is scheduled to be finished by spring 2005. Once completed, the normal operating levels within the tank will range from 535 to 555 feet. In addition, the final design capacity of the storage tank will be 2,000,000 gallons. The current consumers of water from this existing distribution system included much of the development around Vermont National Country Club and the Dorset Farms Subdivision, as well as a few individual additional homes along Dorset Street. As mentioned earlier, this current demand was applied to the system during modeling. The Model The first step in modeling the system was to assign numbering to both the piping arrangement and the junction nodes within the distribution system (see Attachment D). Due to the large size of the system, junction nodes were only assigned at piping intersections or hydrant locations. Upon completion of the physical model, the water demand assessment was applied to the system, as described in the Design Flow Summary of this report. The model included existing peak demands (391 GPM) and proposed peak flow demands (390 GPM). The fact that these two values are similar is merely a function of the number of existing homes having a similar demand as the number of homes and apartments in the new development. It should be noted that the residential development around the Vermont National Country Club was not included within the existing demands, as the flows from this development has a negligible affect on the water distribution system friction losses because of the large diameter (20") line from the tank to the Vermont National Country Club booster station. Regarding the set fixed grade value of the model, a conservative value of 535 feet was used, representing the minimum operating level of the Vermont National storage tank upon completion of the current work. Because no additional future expansion is associated with this development, no allowance was made for a projected increase in demand on the system. The model was then run to determine the available fire flow at critical points throughout the system. This was achieved by running the model with the existing and proposed peak demands, and calculating the available fire flow at each critical location by increasing the flow until the residual pressure within the system fell to 20 psi. Results Based on the shape and topography of the land, the critical point occurs at both the high point of the system, as well as one of the locations furthest from the connection point to the existing system (node 43, see Attachment D). This point was able to produce 1348 GPM 4 un6er peak conditions, 20 GPM used for peak demand and 1328 GPM available for fire flow. All other points within the system produced flows greater than 1348 GPM when pressure was reduced to 20 psi at any point in the distribution system (see Attachment H). The results of modeling generally indicate that the proposed project area has adequate flows to meet firefighting demands at the ground level outside the buildings. The model also indicates that the proposed project will not create any undue impacts on the existing users of the system. Conclusion All of the proposed buildings within this project that contain more than 3 units will include automatic sprinkler systems. This will significantly reduce the emergency fire firefighting flow requirements for the project. The proposed extension of the 12" water main for the proposed mixed -use development will provide adequate capacity at the hydrant locations for controlling a moderate fire and for all design flow requirements to be met for the proposed buildings. The design peak flow demand will reduce the capacity but will not adversely impact the capabilities of the existing distribution system serving the existing consumers. C^PROJECTSV01243-SOU1H-VILLAGR IRE FLOW.DOC Champlain Wu -ter Dig r ci 403 Quecii Ofj, Pork R(KO South BurU"jt, VT 05403 Fire ire Flow Field Report iMW(c: (602) d64-7454 City: South Burlington Street: Midland Ave Location Description. 'low hyd #HS 159 located at the corner of Midland Ave and Catkin Drive. $/R yd # HS 156 located at the corner of Dower St and Cabot Ct In front of house 35.. This development is supplied by a 12" DI water main- Date/Time Tested: 5/10/2004 10:30:00 AM Tester: .Flow .ffvdrant Information Hvd ,i: # HS-159 Hyd 2: # Hyd 3# Hyd 1: Static 55 psi Hyd 2: Static psi Hyd 3 Static psi .Hyd 1: Pitot 42 psi Hyd 2: Pitot psi Hyd 3 Pitot �0� psi Hyd 1: OD Z•5 .Hyd 2: OD U Hyd 3 OD U Hyd 1: C 0.9 Hyd 2: C Hyd3C Hyd 1: Flow 1087.43 gpm Hyd 2: F1ow O 007 gpm Hyd 3 Flow 0.00 gprn Flow = 29.83*C*ODA2*sgr(pitot) Total Flow: 1087.43 gpm Residual Hvdrant Information Hyd Z 8 HS-156 Hyd 2 # Hyd 3 # C� Hyd 1 Static 58 Hyd 2 Static Hyd 3 Static L 0 Hyd 1 Res 47 Hyd 2 Res Hyd 3 ,Res 1 0 System Conditions : Veather- sunny, 75 degrees. Dorset St tank level =77Y. HS status- 2 HS pumps perating at 140 psU3.769 mgd, Dorset St valve 24% open. r 01243Z-0 12/22/04 ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES THIS OUTPUT REPRESENTS THE SYSTEM STEADY STATE CONDITIONS DURING PEAK USAGE WITH A FIRE FLOW DEMAND 1348 GPM BEING PLACED ON THE HYDRANT AT THE HIGH POINT OF THE SYSTEM, NODE 43. THE FIRE FLOW WAS DETERMINED, THROUGH A SERIES OF ITERATIONS, BY ADJUSTING THE FIRE FLOW UNTIL A RESIDUAL PRESSURE OF 20 PSI WAS PRODUCED AT THE HYDARNT AT NODE 43. FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG A SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL DATA FOLLOWS PIPE NO. NODE NOS. LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR LOSS K FIXED GRADE (FEET) (INCHES) 1 0 1 8000.0 12.0 130.0 .00 535.00 2 1 2 1060.0 12.0 130.0 .00 3 2 3 390.0 12.0 130.0 .00 4 3 6 205.0 12.0 130.0 .00 5 2 4 415.0 8.0 130.0 .00 6 4 5 390.0 8.0 130.0 .00 7 5 6 45.0 8.0 130.0 .00 8 5 7 420.0 8.0 130.0 .00 9 7 8 860.0 8.0 130.0 .00 10 8 9 250.0 8.0 130.0 .00 11 6 10 1090.0 12.0 130.0 .00 12 10 11 185.0 8.0 130.0 .00 13 11 12 325.0 8.0 130.0 .00 14 12 13 370.0 8.0 130.0 .00 15 9 13 135.0 8.0 130.0 .00 16 9 14 265.0 8.0 130.0 .00 17 14 15 130.0 8.0 130.0 .00 18 15 16 105.0 8.0 130.0 .00 19 16 17 320.0 8.0 130.0 .00 20 16 18 100.0 8.0 130.0 .00 21 18 19 325.0 8.0 130.0 .00 22 19 20 160.0 8.0 130.0 .00 23 20 21 110.0 8.0 130.0 .00 24 21 22 195.0 8.0 130.0 .00 25 12 22 100.0 8.0 130.0 .00 26 21 32 270.0 8.0 130.0 .00 27 14 32 200.0 8.0 130.0 .00 28 22 23 230.0 8.0 130.0 .00 29 23 24 285.0 8.0 130.0 .00 30 24 27 105.0 8.0 130.0 .00 31 25 27 240.0 8.0 130.0 .00 32 25 26 350.0 8.0 130.0 .00 33 20 26 220.0 8.0 130.0 .00 34 27 29 90.0 8.0 130.0 .00 35 24 45 345.0 8.0 130.0 .00 36 10 45 130.0 12.0 130.0 .00 37 28 45 170.0 12.0 130.0 .00 38 28' 29 365.0 12.0 130.0 .00 39 29 30 270.0 12.0 130.0 .00 40 30 31 350.0 12.0 130.0 .00 41 28 33 260.0 12.0 130.0 .00 42 33 34 255.0 12.0 130.0 .00 43 34 35 340.0 12.0 130.0 .00 44 35 36 420.0 8.0 130.0 .00 45 34 37 525.0 12.0 130.0 .00 46 36 37 305.0 8.0 130.0 .00 47 36 38 225.0 8.0 130.0 .00 48 37 39 120.0 12.0 130.0 .00 49 38 39 345.0 8.0 130.0 .00 50 39 40 55.0 12.0 130.0 .00 51 38 44 400.0 8.0 130.0 .00 52 43 44 430.0 8.0 130.0 .00 53 40 43 405.0 8.0 130.0 .00 54 40 41 300.0 12.0 130.0 .00 55 41 42 800.0 12.0 130.0 .00 A SUCCESSFUL GEOMETRIC VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND ELEVATION CONNECTING PIPES 1 391.00 373.00 1 2 2 14.00 365.00 2 3 5 3 16.00 373.00 3 4 4 25.00 375.00 5 6 5 17.00 368.00 6 7 8 6 16.00 368.00 4 7 11 7 14.00 359.00 8 9 8 .00 353.00 9 10 9 6.00 355.00 10 15 16 10 5.00 358.00 11 12 36 11 9.00 356.00 12 13 12 3.50 357.00 13 14 25 13 7.00 355.00 14 15 14 6.00 361.00 16 17 27 15 .00 357.00 17 18 16 6.00 350.00 18 19 20 17 .00 341.00 19 18 14.00 349.00 20 21 19 5.00 362.00 21 22 20 12.00 369.00 22 23 33 21 5.00 363.00 23 24 26 22 7.00 359.00 24 25 28 23 9.00 363.00 28 29 24 17.00 366.00 29 30 35 25 27.00 369.00 31 32 26 7.00 371.00 32 33 27 .00 368.00 30 31 34 28 10.50 361.00 37 38 41 29 .00 369.00 34 38 39 30 .00 366.00 39 40 31 .00 357.00 40 32 17.00 363.00 26 27 33 .00 363.00 41 42 34 12.00 363.00 42 43 45 35 10.50 353.00 43 44 36 13.00 353.00 44 46 47 37 10.50 366.00 45 46 48 38 11.00 354.00 47 49 51 39 .00 371.00 48 49 50 40 14.00 373.00 50 53 54 41 .00 377.00 54 55 42 .00 365.00 55 43 1348.00 383.00 52 53 44 21.00 361.00 51 52 45 9.00 360.00 35 36 37 OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE OUTPUT EACH PERIOD THIS SYSTEM HAS 55 PIPES WITH 45 JUNCTIONS , 10 LOOPS AND 1 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 5 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00023 01243 SOUTH VILLAGE 12/21/04 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 6 5 2 4 6 4 5 7 5 6 8 5 7 9 7 8 10 8 9 11 6 10 12 10 11 13 11 12 14 12 13 15 9 13 16 9 14 17 14 15 18 15 16 19 16 17 20 16 18 21 18 19 22 19 20 23 20 21 24 21 22 25 12 22 26 21 32 27 14 32 28 22 23 29 23 24 30 24 27 31 25 27 32 25 26 33 20 26 FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 2115.00 81.23 .00 .00 6.00 10.15 1724.00 7.37 .00 .00 4.89 6.95 1315.05 1.64 .00 .00 3.73 4.21 1299.05 .84 .00 .00 3.68 4.12 394.95 1.36 .00 .00 2.52 3.27 369.95 1.13 .00 .00 2.36 2.90 -12.99 .00 .00 .00 -.08 -.01 365.94 1.19 .00 .00 2.34 2.84 351.94 2.27 .00 .00 2.25 2.64 351.94 .66 .00 .00 2.25 2.64 1270.05 4.30 .00 .00 3.60 3.95 75.91 .03 .00 .00 .48 .15 66.91 .04 .00 .00 .43 .12 -139.94 -.18 .00 .00 -.89 -.48 146.94 .07 .00 .00 .94 .52 199.01 .24 .00 .00 1.27 .92 91.43 .03 .00 .00 .58 .22 91.43 .02 .00 .00 .58 .22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 85.43 .02 .00 .00 .55 .19 71.43 .04 .00 .00 .46 .14 66.43 .02 .00 .00 .42 .12 -104.42 -.03 .00 .00 -.67 -.28 -24.84 .00 .00 .00 -.16 -.02 203.35 .10 .00 .00 1.30 .96 -84.58 -.05 .00 .00 -.54 -.19 101.58 .05 .00 .00 .65 .26 171.52 .16 .00 .00 1.09 .70 162.52 .18 .00 .00 1.04 .63 218.80 .11 .00 .00 1.40 1.10 124.84 .09 .00 .00 .80 .39 -151.84 -.19 .00 .00 -.97 -.56 158.84 .13 .00 .00 1.01 .61 34 27 29 343.65 .23 .00 .00 2.19 2.53 35 24 45 -73.29 -.05 .00 .00 -.47 -.14 36 10 45 1189.14 .45 .00 '00 3.37 3.50 37 28 45 -1106.85 -.52 .00 .00 -3.1n -3.06 38 28 29 -343.65 -.13 .00 .00 -.97 -.35 39 29 30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 40 30 31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 41 28 33 1440.00 1.30 .00 .00 4,08 4.98 42 33 34 1440.00 1.27 .00 .00 4.08 4.98 43 34 35 390.04 .15 .00 .00 1.11 .44 44 35 36 379.54 1.28 .00 .00 2.42 3.04 45 34 37 1037.96 1.43 .00 .00 2.94 2.72 46 36 37 1.52 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 47 36 38 365.02 .64 .00 .00 2.33 2.83 48 37 39 1028.98 .32 .00 .00 2.92 2.67 49 38 39 -198.30 -.31 .00 .00 -1.27 -.91 50 39 40 830.69 .10 .00 .00 2.36 1.80 51 38 44 552.31 2.43 .00 .00 3.53 6.08 52 43 44 -531.31 -2.44 .00 .00 -3.39 -5.66 53 40 43 816.69 5.08 .00 .00 5.21 12.56 54 40 41 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 55 41 42 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 1 391.00 453.77 373.00 35.00 2 14.00 446.40 365.00 35.27 3 16.00 444.76 373.00 31.10 4 25.00 445.05 375.00 30.35 5 17.00 443.92 368.00 32.90 6 16.00 443.92 368.00 32.90 7 14.00 442.72 359.00 36.28 8 .00 440.45 353.00 37.90 9 6.00 439.79 355.00 36.74 10 5.00 439.61 358.00 35.37 11 9.00 439.59 356.00 36.22 12 3.50 439.55 357.00 35.77 13 7.00 439.72 355.00 36.71 14 6.00 439.55 361.00 34.04 15 .00 439.52 357.00 35.76 16 6.00 439.50 350.00 38.78 17 .00 439.50 341.00 42.68 18 14.00 439.48 349.00 39.21 19 5.00 439.43 362.00 33.56 20 12.00 439.42 369.00 30.51 21 5.00 439.45 363.00 33.13 22 7.00 439.45 359.00 34.86 23 9.00 439.29 363.00 33.06 24 17.00 439.11 366.00 31.68 25 27.00 439.09 369.00 30.37 26 7.00 439.28 371.00 29.59 27 .00 438.99 368.00 30.76 28 10.50 438.64 361.00 33.64 29 .00 438.77 369.00 30.23 30 .00 438.77 366.00 31.53 31 .00 438.77 357.00 35.43 32 17.00 439.50 363.00 33.15 33 .00 437.34 363.00 32.22 34 12.00 436.07 363.00 31.67 35 10.50 435.92 353.00 35.93 36 13.00 434.65 353.00 35.38 37 10.50 434.65 366.00 29.75 38 11.00 434.01 354.00 34.67 39 .00 434.33 371.00 27.44 40 14.00 434.23 373.00 26.53 41 .00 434.23 377.00 24.80 42 .00 434.23 365.00 30.00 43 1348.00 429.14 383.00 20.00 44 21.00 431.58 361.00 30.58 45 9.00 439.16 360.00 34.30 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 2115.00 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 1 2115.00 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 2115.00 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 South Village Master Plan Design Flow Summary January 28, 2005 Wastewater Design Flows Qty Desc. School 100 Students x Shool Employees 10 Employees x Day Care 59 Employees x Day Care Employees 8 Employees x Subtotal Municipal WW Flow Credit Housing 334 Units x Total Design Flows Water Design Flows School Shool Employees Day Care Day Care Employees Farm Housing Subtotal Low Flow Fixture Credit Total Design Flows Qty Desc. 100 Students x 10 Employees x 59 Employees x 8 Employees x 15 Acres x 847 Bedrooms x Flow Description Flow 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 150 GPD 100% x 20 GPD/Person = 1,180 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 120 GPD 2650 20% (530) 100% x 210 GPD/Unit = 70,140 GPD 72,260 GPD Flow Description Flow 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 150 GPD 100% x 20 GPD/Person = 1,180 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 120 GPD 100% x 300 GPD/Acre = 4,500 GPD 100% x 150 GPD/Bedroom = 127,050 GPD 135.500 10% (13, 550) South Village - Phase I Design Flow Summary July 15, 2004 Wastewater Design Flows Qty Desc. School 100 Students x 100% x Shool Employees 10 Employees x 100% x Day Care 59 Employees x 100% x Day Care Employees 8 Employees x 100% x Subtotal 121,950 GPD Flow Description Flow 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD 15 GPD/Person = 150 GPD 20 GPD/Person = 1,180 GPD 15 GPD/Person = 120 GPD Municipal WW Flow Credit 20% Housing 156 Units x 100% x 210 GPD/Unit Total Design Flows Water Design Flows School Shool Employees Day Care Day Care Employees Farm Housing Subtotal Low Flow Fixture Credit Qty Desc. 100 Students x 10 Employees x 59 Employees x 8 Employees x 15 Acres x 404 Bedrooms x 2650 (530) 32,760 GPD 34,880 GPD Flow Description Flow 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 150 GPD 100% x 20 GPD/Person = 1,180 GPD 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 120 GPD 100% x 300 GPD/Acre = 4,500 GPD 100% x 150 GPD/Bedroom = 60,600 GPD 69,050 10% (6.905) Total Design Flows 62,145 GPD PROVIDE FOR FUTURE CONNECTION TO EXIFT"'^ 12" WATER MAIN PROVIDE FOR RE CONNECTION T STING 12" WATER MAIN c � All work to be performer. in occordonce in, the Spe-ifi,ohons and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenon(es for all Water Systems 0ned b. the Champloin Water District, the City of South Burlington. .Ind the Village of Jericho. Detail,=, should be modified to the obove reverence specifications. GRAPHIC SCALE ' \ ( IN FEET I inch 200 it. PLANS PREPARED BY: CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dm" AWY mE DSM APPROVED DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: LAND U4EPLAA6YER/ARCA9TECT LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVILLE, IN CA'a HVQAUEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT nWF/C EWIVSER TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH LANDSCAPE AgCAW-CT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH `TILLAGE Snvrh Rurlln Rt V•rm SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT LEGEND WATER LOCATION MAP I" = 3000, DATE I ORecm I RSOSION SEWER + WATER MASTER PLAN DATE DRARINO NORDER AUGUST, 2004 scare ," = 200' C 6.0 PROI. NO. 01243 0 71, 9 ', ;%\ CIA ti k: 0 South Village Nii,th Btiflington, Vermow fllmtcTM-s [A It -unt - lwk 24 rdniu� Units K#m I lomw 9 Ular• pitm awrtlxmws 33 units El A�mrfnw:911" 124 workits uniu till) Nth 'WaLing Trial The Rellrov"t Cora panics A-W,pr,hme,o-t C, 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 November 5, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application - Response to Staff Report Dear Mr. Robertson: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com Based upon input from the Development Review Board, Staff and the public, we have modified the Master Plan application to provide additional information and revisions to the design here appropriate. To aid the Development Review Board (DRB) in the review of this application, we have provided responses to each one of Staff's requests. City Engineer, Mr. Bill Szymanski 1. Allen Road up to now was planned as a through east -west street. Midland Avenue, built by Milot, was designed for that purpose. This development restricts that through travel. Consistent with the City's evolving and current policy for collector roads located furthest away from City Center, the design of the connector roadway system from Allen Road to Midland Avenue does create much more friction than the historical City standard for collector roads. The intent is to provide a reduced speed more pedestrian friendly environment for these new neighborhoods. 2. City Street Design Standards have a safety factor. Granting the waivers the developer requested will work, however, the safety factor is reduced and accidents will result. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 2 of 7 November 5, 2004 If the travel speeds are not reduced as a result of the modified designs we would totally agree. However, the creation of streets with increased friction, frequent stops, dispersion (rather than collection) of travel paths and reduced speeds has actually shown a reduction in the number of accidents per mile traveled. 3. City Street Construction Standards should not be waived including private streets. All streets must have proper drainage, road base, paving, curbs and sidewalks. We concur. Fire Chief, Mr. Douglas S. Brent 1. Road widths and turning radii should be monitored through -out. On October 26, 2004 we met with Chief Brent and Bruce Hoar to review the turning radius issues. It was agreed that the intersection of D street and A Street would be reworked and that the Phase I plans would include areas striped off areas where parking would not be allowed to facilitate the movement of the Tower truck through the project intersections. 2. Trees, fences, and floral out croppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of hose lines, potable ladders and other equipment. It was agreed during the October 26, 2004 meeting that these details would be worked out as part of the permitting for each phase of the project. Chief Brent indicated that he would prefer that the typical street tree planting spacing be modified to provide for access to each structure. 3. Hydrants are generally not an issue as they are situated to comply with the city water regulations. We concur with this statement but have still provided the Chief to modify any of the proposed locations to facilitate emergency response operations. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 3 of 7 November 5, 2004 4. The need for sprinklers and alarm systems will generally follow the labor and Industry Fire Prevention Codes. We concur. Public Works Director, Mr. Bruce K. Hoar 1. The intersection of Spear and Allen will be traffic light controlled as a result of this development. The developer shall confirm that the ROW exists for the infrastructure to light the intersection. The City has used most of the ROW of the northwest and southwest of the intersection. There may have to be additional ROW purchased to equip this location and should be dealt with at the beginning of this process. We have completed a boundary survey of the right-of-way in the vicinity of the Allen Road and Spear Street intersection. The results of the boundary survey show that the intersection pavement crowds the right-of-way at the east end but there appears to be just enough room for the proposed traffic light pole base installation. A small sketch f the intersection is attached. 2. Project needs to comply with South Burlington Specifications for Construction, except where waiver granted. We concur. 3. 1 would not grant the waiver for AL-26 road if this were the only frontage for a lot. The City would probably end up owning these roads int he future. If this street is just an alley way behind a property as originally proposed, then I have no problem with them. The master plan application has been revised to eliminate any lots that do not have frontage on a public street. 4. Hard to tell from the plans but the section of road that runs North to South on the East side of the proposed farm land seems to have changed somewhat from what was agreed upon. The Street assignment plan has been revised to correct this oversight and to make it consistent with the concepts approved in 2002 as part of the original review. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 4 of 7 November 5, 2004 5. If utilities are to be placed within the City ROW then they will need to be placed as called for by the City Engineer and not by the utilities. There is to be no agreements between the developer and the utilities that have to do with our ROW (no easements). The water and sewer utilities are owned and controlled by the City and we will place these wherever it is desirable within the ROW. We have reviewed a proposed duct bank installation with Green Mountain Power that would place the distribution partially within the City ROW but would require no easements thereby the City's long term interests in its ROW clearance. 6. City Sewers need to be run in our ROW in the Center of the Streets and not through wetlands or back of properties as shown on the plans. The originally submitted master plan for the sewer collection system did show the use of off right-of-way sewer main locations as a means of working with the land form instead of against it. This request will be respected when the goals of providing a viable, maintainable sewer collection system with the street right-of-ways can be provided. The sewer and water master plan sheet has been revised to reflect this request. 7. All sidewalks are to comply with new ADA rules. Truncated domes at all ramps. We concur. 8. Checker board grates for catch basins are to be 24" square. This will be implemented into the Phase I construction details. 9. All round covers for manholes on sanitary or storm sewers are to be 26". This will be implemented into the Phase I construction details. 10. All connections for change in direction for underground pipes, sanitary or storm, except for foundation or sanitary service connections, need to be made in structures. We concur. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 5 of 7 November 5, 2004 Recreation Path Committee, Mr. Tom Hubbard, Support Staff 1. The plans have been revised to reflect the alignment recommendations outlined in the September 2, 2004 memorandum. The request to construct all of the east -west section to Midland Avenue was reviewed at the November 1, 2004 Recreation Path Meeting. A copy of the memorandum requesting a reconsideration of the need to accelerate the construction of the Phase III leg of the path into Phase I is attached. Planning Staff Review Comments 1. The Ridge Phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is only partially approved as a development area. The 65 buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of this phase are not approved for open space and wildlife considerations. However, the 46 buildings and building lots that comprise the lower portion of this area are approved, as proposed through this application. The Ridge neighborhood has been reconfigured to eliminate much of the northern development area footprint that had been originally proposed. The density has been partially re -allocated to the southern half of the Ridge neighborhood while a portion has been shared with the northeastern portions of the "Fields edge" neighborhood. We have attached a copy of the roadway designers recommendations regarding the inclusion of some form of land use on the north side of the Collector roadway. Plan Revision Summary We have made the following changes to the plans which are being included as part of this submittal. Cover Sheet Added new Revision Date and modified the small text color so that it is more legible. S1.0 Master Plat Pan - Updated the lot configurations to reflect the reduction in the "Ridge" neighborhood and the re -allocation of density throughout the project Revisions to the lot numbers. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 6 of 7 November 5, 2004 S1.1 Master Pan Phasing - Updated the Lot configurations and updated the maximum number of units in each phase. Phase 4 became Phase 2. Phase 2 became Phase 3 and the old Phase 3 (the Grove neighborhood) was eliminated. S1.2 Master Pan Phasing - Updated lot configurations and added future recreation path. S1.3 Master Pan Phasing - Updated lot configurations and added future recreation path. S1.4 Master Pan Phasing - Updated to show new road/wetland crossing and to show the proposed rec path location. C1.5 Proposed Illustrative Site Plan - This updated version will be added to the package by November 10, 2004. C2.5 Restricted Area Plan - This has been re -issued with the with new lot configuration T4.1 thru T4.4 Street Hierarchy Plan and Supporting Sections - Reissued with updated information to address the concerns of Mr. Bruce Hoar. C5.0 Sewer and Water Master Pan - Reissued with revised sewer alignments. C5.1 Stormwater Master Pan - Reissued with detention basin locations shown. W Plans Wetland Crossing Plans 1.0 through 4.0 - Issued with this set of plans to better identify the details of the proposed wetland and stream crossings. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 7of7 November 5, 2004 This completes our summary of the updated information included with this package. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Attachments: Plans (5 Full Size B/W, 8 reduced to 11 "x 17") Allen Road/Spear Street intersection right-of-way sketch Rec Path Committee Memorandum cc: David Scheuer Michelle Holgate Rick Chellman David Raphael (all with attachments, reduced size plans) CA 1 Let\01243\Master\RobertsonM asterl wpd Memorandum To: Mr. Tom Hubbard City of South Burlington Recreation Path Committee Staff From: Dave Marshall - CEA and David Raphael - Land -Works Re: South Village Recreation Path Phasing Options Date: October 26, 2004 The South Village project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. 1. Village Center Neighborhood (southwest quadrant of the site) 2. Fields Edge Neighborhood (northwest quadrant of the site) 3. The Ridge Neighborhood (south/southeast quadrant of the site) We understand that it was the Recreation Path's initial recommendation to have all of the recreation path from Allen Road to Dorset Farms installed as part of the Phase I construction component of the project. The goal being to provide a connective path system that is not subject to development phasing issues. Upon the request of the Development Review Board the applicant was requested to accelerate the designs for the three transportation related wetland crossings for the project. Two of these crossings are required to complete the recreation path connection from the Phase I Village Center area to Dorset Farms. Through this design effort, the exact extent of the bridging and crossing improvements have been refined so as to allow a better understanding of the impacts of the Recreation Path Committee's initial recommendation. The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of the construction of the southeast quadrant leg of the recreation path between the Village Center Neighborhood and Dorset Farms for the following reasons while also proposing some mitigative measures to achieve the connectivity goal until the final path can be built. Implementation Challenges A. User Conflicts - Constructing the path prior to road construction and the development on each of the lots closest to the path will create a safety conflict between the users and the construction activities. This condition is most acute at the locations where the path is parallel to the proposed road and utility improvements. B. Infrastructure Requirements - As outlined above, the southeast quadrant path connection will require two wetland / stream crossings to be built to support the recreation path construction between the Village neighborhood and Dorset Farms. The first crossing near the middle- Mr. Tom Hubbard Page 2 of 2 October 19, 2004 south of the property requires a 28' clear span structure and 13' feet of fill. The second wetland crossing further to the east near Dorset Farms will also require the construction a precast concrete structure and filling of the wetland. These improvements are necessary for the development of the land but create inordinately large up -front cost exposures without the opportunity to offset them with the sale of the real estate that they will be accessing. This section of the recreation path is over one-half mile long. C. Environmental Impacts - The goal of minimizing exposures to the adjacent streams and wetlands can be best met by completing the construction of the recreation path and roadway crossings once as opposed to building the recreation path first and then the roadway infrastructure later. Proposed Mitigation D. That the Phase I path be routed into the south end of the Village Center sidewalk system to create a looped path system. E. That the southeast leg of the recreation path right-of-way, which is nearly one-half mile be dedicated to the City as part of Phase I construction. F. Upon completion of Phase I construction, that a temporary "primitive" path be cut out along the southeast quadrant route for use by the general public. This section of the path would be brush hogged to a width of 12' and the vegetation cut to a height of 6" minus. Use would be discontinued during the "Ridge" neighborhood construction in the southeast quadrant of the property. We have attached a plan prepared by Land -Works which shows the proposed phasing of the recreation path to allow the Path Committee to better understand he opportunities and challenges associated with the proposed completion of this path system. Given the length of the entire recreation path which is approximately 1.5 miles, we believe that this phasing is a reasonable proposal. We look forward to having the opportunity to review these issues with the Recreation Path Committee during its November 1s', 2004 meeting. EXISTING HOUSE El .0 R N / ' N ' (V O ' d' O O N O a ' M CD I" lPF 8" AG N n O_ O LO S � n U N N 9VIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES- It) ALLEN ROAD/ SPEAR STREET Project No F(-)rO. BOX 485 SHELBURNE, VT 05482 01243 INTERSECTION R.O.W. 492-985-2323 FAX- 802-985-2271 Sheet scale: 1" = 100' Drawn by ACL PLAN date NOV., 2004 Checked by DSM SOUTH BURLINGTON VT. DRAFT — NOVEMBER 12, 2004 1 MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington/Retrovest Review File From: Shelley G. Gustafson Subject: South Village/Wetlands Review Status Report Date: November 12, 2004 Pioneer Environmental Associates, LLC. (Pioneer) has prepared this memorandum and supporting documentation to report on the status of its wetlands review of the South Village parcel in South Burlington, Vermont. On October 19 and 20, 2004, Pioneer conducted a site investigation at the above -referenced parcel to review all areas identified as "problem areas", as outlined in an October 4, 2004 letter from Dori Barton of Arrowwood Environmental letter to Brian Robertson of the City of South Burlington. Prior to conducting the field work, Pioneer also reviewed a memorandum prepared by Art Gilman of William D. Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning dated September 15, 2004, which discussed these same areas. Where appropriate, Pioneer delineated additional wetland areas in the field, and subsequently located the supplemental boundary flags using GPS. A map depicting these areas is included on page 1 of the Attachment. The following sections provide a summary of Pioneer's tasks and/or determinations with regard to these "problem areas" in the order in which they were addressed in Dori Bartons' October 4, 2004 letter. Each of the original comments is re -stated prior to a discussion based on Pioneer's evaluation. South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 2 November 11, 2004 1. There is additional Class II wetland on the subject property which has not been delineated. The dot represents the GPS location of approximately where the wetland begins along the southern boundary. Pioneer concurs that there is additional Class Two wetland area flanking the small stream that flows through this corner of the property. This area has been identified by Pioneer as Wetland 2004-1, as shown on the map on page 1 of the Attachment. One transect was established within this area to document conditions on either side of the wetland boundary. Data sheets for this wetland are provided on pages 2 through 5 of the Attachment. Within the wetland, the clay loam soils are hydric, characterized by a dark A layer over a depleted B layer. Dominant vegetation consisted of greater than 50 percent hydrophytes and included Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn), Viburnum thlobum (cranberry viburnum), Acer sacharrum (sugar maple) displaying predominant raised roots, Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen) also displaying raised roots, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash). Wetland hydrology is most likely driven by the stream. By contrast, the soils in the adjacent upland area were not hydric, evidenced by a B layer displaying a color value of 3 and a chroma of 4 and the absence of redoximorphic features in the top 12 inches of the soil profile. Dominant vegetation consisted of less than 50 percent hydrophytes and included common South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 3 November 11, 2004 buckthorn, sugar maple that did not display raised roots, and Tilia americans (basswood). Elevation increases steadily from the edge of the wetland and into the upland, limiting the hydrological influence of the stream. This wetland extends to the south on to the adjacent property, beyond the limit of our delineation. Pioneer continued the delineation a sufficient distance to the south such that the corresponding 50 foot buffer required by both the city and the state will be reflected accurately within the subject parcel. 2. It has been agreed that this is not a problem area. Based on the above comment, we did not review this area. 3. It has been agreed that the two wetlands shown connect. We disagree that this is a moot point. An accurate portrayal of the wetlands needs to be presented on the site plan. The point shown on the map represents a GPS location taken in the field of additional wetland area that has not been mapped. Pioneer delineated the swale-like feature that connects these two wetland areas at this location, which has been labeled Wetland 2004-3 on the map on page 1 of the Attachment. South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 4 November 11, 2004 Pioneer reviewed the boundary elsewhere within the vicinity of this area, and did not find additional wetlands that had not been previously included. 4. We disagree that the two wetlands are not connected. Again, we disagree that this is a moot point for the same reason stated above. Pioneer determined that a hydrologic connection between the two previously mapped wetlands is present at this location. Based on the very uniform dimensions and linearity of this feature, we have concluded that this connection is a ditch rather than jurisdictional wetland. However, because it serves as a hydrologic connection between the two features, the wetland area to the north would be considered contiguous to the wetland to the south and is thus a Class Two wetland. We have shown this connection as a line on the map (page 1 of the Attachment). 5. We believe that there are additional wetland areas in this location most likely extending the wetland finger currently mapped. Pioneer has completed a field evaluation of this area, and as a result extended the Class Two wetland boundary slightly in this location, which has been labeled Wetland 2004-5 on the map (page 1 of the Attachment). The primary difference that we observed distinguishing upland from wetland along our extended line was the increased density of Solidago canadensis (Canada goldenrod) within the 1 South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 5 November 11, 2004 herbaceous stratum on the upland side, thus shifting dominant vegetation to less than 50 percent hydrophytes. The clay loam soils were hydric, displaying a depleted B layer within 10 inches of the soil surface both within the wetland boundary, and just outside of it. 6. The points on the map represent GPS locations taken in the field of additional wetland areas that have not been mapped. We do not agree with the interpretation that this area is a "dug ditch in upland". Pioneer delineated a small Class Three wetland in this area, which is labeled Wetland 2004-6 on the attached map. This area constitutes a depression within the surrounding upland meadow that contains both hydric soils and dominance by hydrophytic vegetation. Although this area is fairly linear, we did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to determine that this area is an old ditch. For example, the soils did not appear to be altered, there was no obvious bank cut, and there was no clear hydrologic reason for the prior construction of a ditch at this location. 7. Based on presence of wetland vegetation, possibly misidentified in the original delineation, hydrology and likely hydric soils, we believe this area is likely additional wetland. South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 6 November 11, 2004 Based on field investigation, Pioneer extended the Class Two wetland boundary slightly in this location, which has been labeled Wetland 2004-7 on the attached map. We believe the revised boundary more closely matches the pattern typical for the site, whereby Corpus racemosa (red -panicle dogwood), and Canada goldenrod are largely absent in wetland areas and become dominant in immediately adjacent upland areas. The area we delineated also contains hydric soils, and is situated within a depression that likely facilitates the presence of wetland hydrology. 8. There is additional Class II wetland at the property line with the adjacent southern property which has not been mapped. This wetland boundary needs to be mapped in order to accurately portray the 50' wetland buffer on the subject property. Permissions to access the property for delineation purposed has been granted. Pioneer delineated an isolated Class Three wetland in this location, which has been labeled Wetland 2004-8 on the attached map. The wetland continues to the south within the adjacent property beyond the limit of our delineation. We believe that we continued the delineation such that the corresponding 50 foot buffer required by the city will be reflected accurately within the subject parcel. To the north of the property line, the wetland is wooded, dominated by Corpus amomum (silky dogwood) displaying raised roots. Within the adjacent upland, 1 South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 7 November 11, 2004 the topography slopes upward, and the vegetation shifts to a dominance by red - panicle dogwood without raised roots, typical for upland areas on the site in general. We determined that there is a clear divide between this wetland and the Class Two wetland to the northwest, thus making this feature Class Three. To the south of the property line, the wetland corresponds to a swale-like feature within open meadow. Hydrophytic graminoids are dominant including Poa palustris (fowl meadow grass), Carex spp. (sedges), and Scirpus cyperinus (wool grass). 9. There is additional wetland, likely Class ll, on the adjacent property to the east. This wetland boundary needs to be mapped in order to accurately portray the 50' wetland buffer on the subject property. Pioneer delineated this additional wetland area and have labeled it as Wetland 2004-9 on the attached map. The wetland appears to extend into the adjacent property to the east, although we did not continue the delineation beyond the property line. According to wetlands mapping from 1994 of this adjacent parcel, Wetland 2004-9 is contiguous to a previously mapped Class Two wetland. 10. Based on field review, and absence of wetland flagging in these areas, we recommend an independent review of the boundaries. We have been I South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 8 November 11, 2004 unable to verify with the Army Corps of Engineers that they specifically reviewed and approved the original delineation in these areas. Pioneer has reviewed this area and concur with the previously mapped boundary. We believe that the adjacent upland area within this vicinity does not contain greater than 50 percent hydrophytes and therefore, does not qualify as wetland. 11. Based on field observation of vegetation, hydrology and soils, we believe that there is additional wetland area in this location. We disagree with the conclusion that this is a moot point for the same reason stated in Problem Area 3. Pioneer revised the Class Two wetland boundary in this location (feature 2004- 11) to extend back to the existing Pinus strobes (white pine) tree line. We based this on the observation of hydric soils, greater than 50 percent hydrophytes and assumed wetland hydrology based on this area's low-lying position and proximity to the adjacent stream. 12. Based on field review, and absence of wetland flagging in these areas, we recommend an independent review of the boundaries. We have been unable to verify with the Army Corps of Engineers that they specifically reviewed and approved the original delineation in these areas. South Burlington/Retrovest Review File Page 9 November 11, 2004 Below the tree line within this area, we observed a mosaic of wetland and upland areas. Wetland pockets within this area are characterized by an absence of Canada goldenrod, and prevalence of Equisetum hyemale (common horsetail); both observations reverse in adjacent upland areas. Due to both time limitations and the knowledge that this location is not within the proposed development area, Pioneer did not delineate every wetland pocket within this location. Instead we established a "safety line" (depicted by a yellow dashed line on the attached map), above which is upland, although below this line a mix of both wetland and upland areas are present. F:\PROJECT\04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review\wetland status report.doc 1 a a t1 [u,ti Jr ,M , Nw 4 Ditch xfi - �, ¢ 5 u ° Mixed etland/ " � 11 2004r. 5 Upland Zone i 3 20d i-03 2004os ,t 12 g. " #, 2 2004o7 6 • rR �;:; 'rs 9 r 4-09 04 08 } , _ 8 t Wetland Extends ' DeI neated�Area South Village Sources: Vi DOQ ti 096212 (1998); Wetland Boundary - CEA Provided by Civil Engineering Associates (2004); Wetlands, Wetlands - Pioneer South Burlington, VT Ditch, Revised Wetlands Boundary & Saftey Line mapped using a Trimble GeoXT GPS (2004); Streams were provided by VCGI Wetland Boundary - CEA 1:5000 scale Vermont Hydrography Dataset (2004) Wetlands Review by Pioneer ---- Ditch -Pioneer i November 12, 2004 Stream N PIONEER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIM,1U. CONSULTING MENf1SfS Property Line 48 Green St, Ste.2 P.O. Box 354, Vergennes, VT06491 Phone:802-877-1380 Fax:802-877.1385 F:PROJECT 04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review Created By: JLS email: pioneere@sover.net s to � a s.. a. � .• .Alp t MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning To: David Scheuer, Retrovest Companies Dave Marshall, CEA From: Juli Beth Hinds, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning RE: Land Management Plan for South Village Date: November 22, 2004 cc: Brian Robertson, Ray Belair The following comments are based on my review of the Draft South Village Community Land Management Plan dated November 8, 2004. As you both know, the land management approaches outlined in this document, and presented at the Development Review Board, are crucial to this project's performance with respect to the City's standards for PUDs in the Southeast Quadrant. We are excited to see this type of restoration and land management approach proposed, and concerned that we take all necessary steps to ensure its long-term success. One of the most important measures that the City can take to help support the goals of this management plan is to specify carefully what measures can and cannot be enforced by the City, what measures or proposals should be included as Findings of Fact in any decision on this project, and the details of responsibility and financing for specific activities. This memo goes through the report sequentially, identifying these types of issues as they occur, and requesting information where we believe it is necessary to determine the relationship of a specified action to the City's review process. Before the next DRB meeting in January, I would like to ensure that we have at least had a conversation about these issues and that they are acknowledged or (hopefully) resolved to the satisfaction of staff and Retrovest before the meeting. Statements in the Plan that are agreed to by staff that need to become part of the decision governing the project are noted as "FOF" for "Finding of Fact." Section i. Manap:ement of Neighborhood Facilities and Activities 1.0 Recreation Path: FOF: The City will own and manage the recreation path. 2.0 Sidewalks: FOF: sidewalks within the City right of way will be City owned and managed. 3.2 Quiet Path Management/Maintenance MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning FOF: The community association will be responsible for the general maintenance of the paths, which includes clearing of debris and other foreign matter. FOF: The paths will not be plowed during the winter months, and patrons shall enter and use the paths at their own risk. 4.0 Parking and Access Question: The plan states that parking and access for residents and visitors will be available at the Village Center." Have these areas been noted on the plan? 6.o Recreation Field and Facilities Question: The plan states that recreational fields and facilities will be private. Has this been represented as such to the DRB? Staff to note as such in memo 7.0 Signing The plan states that "signs will be installed." It is essential to recognize in this plan, and as a finding of fact, that all signage must conform to and be permitted in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. If there are issues related to the Sign Ordinance, we should discuss these and the needs for South Village as soon as possible. 8.o Back Yards Note: It should be noted in the homeowners' association documents that the City cannot enforce maintenance and fertilization guidelines. 8.4 Human/Wildlife Conflict Preventative Measures Question: Have fenced and screened trash and recycling (dumpster) areas been specified for all multi -family and non-residential buildings on the property? From meeting, "typical" site plan for multi -family and non-res to be submitted with Master Plan so that these only need site plan review approval. 8.6 Landscaping and Vegetation Comment: The bullet points on page 10 relate in large part to the landscaping plan. Does the discouragement of mowing relate to individually - owned lots, or common land? Common land should be prohibited from mowing if it is shown as "unmowed" on the landscaping plan. Question: For the City to make positive findings under Section 12.02(E)(2) on encroachments/activities within a class II wetland, we must have a CUD from the State indicating that such activities are approved. Has the CUD application to the State addressed the issues of disturbance within wetland vegetation for remediation activities? 7 MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning Comment: For the City to make positive findings under Section i2.o2(E)(3) on Class II buffers, and Class III buffers and wetlands, m, a need sonieLfting wal describes how the activities will meet standards (a) through (c) on page 158 of the zoning regulations. Section 2. Ecological Restoration Proms 1.3 Adaptive Restoration and Management Comment: The City will be relying heavily on the principles and plans embodied in the restoration and management approach to make positive findings under the General PUD Standards (Sections 15.18(A)(4), (5), (6), and (1o)), and also the specific SEQ standards (Sections 15.18(B)(1), (3), (4), and (6)). It certainly is staffs position that the proposed management plan meets the spirit of these requirements. The letter is the trickier part! To this end, we must address the following: (1) What is the estimated cost of years 1 through 3 of the restoration plan? (2) Who will be responsible for oversight of the restoration plan? (3) Who will do the purchasing of materials for the plan? (4) Who will oversee the laborers? (5) Who will pay the laborers? (6) Who will train volunteers? (7) At what points in the process, if any, will volunteers be used? More important, how would the applicant propose to coordinate with the City and homeowners so that there is good communication about what is happening, when, and why? From meeting: Some of these can be answered, some have to be left for future. Homeowners' association is to be responsible; need applicant to provide some surety on cost for at least initial 3 phases that are described in the restoration plan so City can make positive findings. What is applicant's proposal on providing this surety? (Can be dealt with in answer to 3.1 and 3.5 below) 2.2 Wildlife Use Pattterns FOF: Wildlife use of the South Village property was most strongly associated with forested wetlands and mature forest areas near the eastern boundary of the property. FOF: Tracking surveys of mammals documented heaviest use on the east side of the wetland complex that bisects the property. Large mammals established trails along the eastern wetland margins in transitional areas with adjoining uplands, and primarily in the northeastern areas of the property. 2.3 Habitat Connectivity VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT: This section of the land management plan is weak, particularly given how germane this is to the City's need for information to 3 MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning make a sound Finding of Fact pursuant to Section 15.18(A)(4) (open space) and especially 15.18(B)(3) (wildlife habitat and corridors). The Open Space Strategy has an arrow right on top of the Great Swamp area. This area has been identified as having some value for travel, and the association with other areas to the south and east of the property (especially between the Great Swamp and the less developed estate lots along Dorset Street) makes it essential to address these connections and how the project relates to them. The statements in this section must be supported with more information and discussion. Staff: Staff will need to review carefully the roadway connection, and we appreciate the detailed drawings that have been submitted. 2.4 Improvement of Wildlife Habitat Question: Have invasives and exotics been noted in the Great Swamp, as seems to be implied at the bottom of page 20? 2.5 Site Specific Opportunities Question: Could the applicants please note the "substantial greenway" location on the landscaping plan or overall plan showing conserved and developed areas? Section 3.o Restoration and Management Activities 3.1 Introduction Comment: I believe it would be helpful for staff and Retrovest to come up with a statement that would formally authorize the adaptive management program, either as an MOA or within the context of the decision itself. An MOA probably is better. This would incorporate the questions outlined above about staffing, oversight, financing, responsibility, etc. Would Retrovest like staff to come up with an initial draft, or to review something that you have put together? 3.2 Scheduling Question: Will a restoration and management program, and specifications, be done for this site, or are the generic ones in the draft report what will be submitted? 3.5 Restoration Stage Activities Question/Comment: A general question and comment related to section 3.5 on restoration activities relates to the overall site plan that has to be approved at the Master Plan stage, and the landscaping plans that must be approved at preliminary plat stage. The City's plan approval amendment process may be overly cumbersome for the kind of adaptive management that is proposed here, and we need to come up with an agreed method for ensuring that plans and conditions are complied with while allowing adaptive management to occur. .19 MEMO South Burlington Planning&Zoning (1) How will the restoration areas, such as the "colorful native plant enhancement areas," be noted on the landscape? How will areas that "can be converted to native grassland systems with moderate effort" be determined and delineated? (2) What's the best administrative process for amending a landscaping plan with restoration areas? To what extent can general restoration areas be established on an overall site plan now? (3) How will this be integrated with the City's landscaping cost requirement? 3.6 Management Stage Activities Question: When will "management units" be defined? Section 4. Agricultural Management Plan 2.o General Recommendation Comment: It needs to be understood within the Findings of Fact and homeowners' deeds that farm infrastructure, buildings, etc. within the "envelope" designated at Master Plan are EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REVIEW AND ORDINANCES. Comment: A nursery, mentioned under 2.0, would override that exemption, and become a use regulated under the City Land Development Regulations. 2