The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH 9 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear StreetPRMECT DATA - PROJECT PARCEL = 226.79ACRES ZONING - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. SINGLE FAMILY." ,�dlJJ! - - 12 000 SF MIN. LO FRONTAGE (LO - r n7 r:anr�renc �� r q).,yg �,u (Di MAX. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- 1.2 U/AC. MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT 20 FT SIDE 10 FT REAR 30 FT 50 FRONT YARD SETBACK ON ALL DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADS MULTI - FAMILY., M OT AREA • 12,000 SF MIN. LOT FRONTAGE ENSRY•1.2UlAC. MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT 20 FT SIDE 20 FT Total Parcel Size Total Parcel Size In Shelburne Total Parcel Size in South Burlington Maximum Allowable Number of Units perAcre Maximum Number of Units wlo Density Boras Maximum Mixed Rate Affordable Housing Density Bows Maximum Number of Units with Density Bonus Number of Units Proposed Minimum Number of Below Market Rate Units Required 226.79 acres 2.61 acres 223.18 acres 1.2 287.8 Units 25 % 334.7 334 33.4 Landowner: Mr. Paul Calkins '4� k� od, '• �„M," 1,� Y. y. :�, '6 `'Oi �kiits ��"g' Lw "4e"�; k"i GRAPHIC SCALE " IN FEET ) ] inch 30It yam+ cl Mf ,' t n. N. F Plans SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT LAST REVISED 12-23-04 INDEX OF DRAWINGS, Cover Sheet S1.0 Master Plat Plan S1.1 Master Plan Phasing 1"=200 S1.2 Master Plan Phasing V'=100-North S1.3 Master Plan Phasing 1"= 100-South S1.4 Master Plan Phasing l"=100-East 01.5 Proposed Site Plan C2.0 Existing Conditions Overall Orthophoto Plan C2.1 Existing Conditions Plan C2.2 Delineated Soil Mapping Plan E2.3 Ecological Eldstirg Corxtitions C2.4 View Corridor Plan C2.6 Restricted Area Plan Agriculture F3.0 Proposed Overall Farming Limits F3.1 Partial Farming Limits Plan E3.2 Restoration Plan Transportation T4.0 Trail & Sidewalk Plan T4.1 Street Hierarchy Plan T4.3 Street Typical Sections T4.4 Street Typical Sections T4.5 Street Typical Sections Utilities C5.0 Sewer & Water Master Plan C6.1 Storm water Master Plan Applicant: South Village Communities, LLC VIC mum MAW w Qrri \ Of III III�Ro 14,11 f S� IIL _ h I, 1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET I 1 I_b - zoo 1L p 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I - I 1 1 1 I Q PLANS PREPARED BY: A CML ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. DRANK AWY CDECEED DSM APPROVED DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: LAND G LSE PL ANAlER/AgW17EC r LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVILLE, 7N OWL ENGWEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, Vr TAMPM EAY>Wffl? TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH LAArOtS1CAPE ARalAECr LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, Vr PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILLAGE South Buelln con, V—m"t SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT DATE I CREC REVISION 11-5-Od DSM REVISED LOT LAYOUTS 11-YS-0/ DSM REVISED LOT LAYOUTS, ROAD ALIGNMENT MASTER PLAT PLAN DATE DRAWING NVMM AUGUST, 2004 w UE 1' -100, sto MASTER PLAN PROF' N- AUGUST, 2004 01243 NORTH ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 1088 AADT 73 AM PEAK 85 PM PEAK MAIN ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 1738 AADT 167 AM PEAK 137 PM PEAK L AGRICULTURAL or OPEN SPACE NOT DEPENDENT ON PHASING :k4,8 ACRESP If I I I I It AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE NOT DEPENDENT ON PHASING *17.9 ACRES aspervious Area 6.8 AcreageofP =p 20% Maximum Building Coverage 43.36 Maximum Building Acreage Allowed `g 10.0 Phase 1 Maximum Building Coverage A a 15.0 Ph a 2 Miudinum Building Coverage Aar Aar 15.0 Phase 3 Maximum Building Coverage Acreag ::g 5.0 Phase 4 Maximum Building Coverage Acreage M . 226.8 Acreage of Property 40% 90.72 20.0 10.0 Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage Allowed Phan I Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage phase2 Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage •.... 30.0 phase 4 Maximum Lot Coverage Acreage Q� ............... ................ .......... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .............. ....................... ................ ........ D ................ ........ ,DGE ........... . ........ 99 UNM . ................ ......... ...... ........ ob............... : .......... ......................... OPEN SPACE .......1................ 1M ..........* .... ..Rp70RATDN AID ...... ................ IIIINXIIIIAT 111PROIIIIIIIIIIII11IIS *1111A A� . .................... I........... .............. ............................ ............................. ............ .......... ............" . I * ......... ' ........... ........ ............. .... ........... . ............ ..... ................. I ............ .... ............ .... .......... .........rr wawVI .. ..... % Aso AM . . . . . 156 TS 25&6 .... SOUTH ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 940 AADT 59 AM PEAK A 67 PM PEAK WIN E Iz. it 11 of NO _�' - , 0 AND EIS SPA t DEVELOPMENT ...... Of 12.1 L —m—p—ow GRAPHIC SCALE Il IN FEET I L _b - 20. K -EAST ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 199 AADT 16 AM PEAK 16 PM PEAK I di ll ',, _j PLANS PREPARED BY: _0� CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. AWY CULCM 06M APPROM DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: LAW " ALA0VA*ftA4RW17EC7' LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVILLE, 7N aW ENSWM CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT rA10M TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH L4411=4FIF AROWWT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH`TILLAGE SourA a'... V..t SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VF T1CNRCIrRD j"DA'. 1 RM"c" M. KIMI LOT LAYOUTS 112-23-041 DSM IREVISED LOT LAYOUT% ROAD ALIGNMENT MASTER PLAN PHASING DAIS OfUsING NUMFUU1 JUNE, 2004 STALE 1' - 200' S1.1 PAW. NO. 01243 PLANS PREPARED BY: / 1 CNIL ENOINEERINO ASSOCIATES, INC. P.D. 90a:?5 SHELSURVE. VT 06482 ! aca-:-= FAz aozseszv; Nm: www.ceo-vt.crnr. ORARN AWY - - CHECKED DSM APPROVED I DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: NORTH ENTRANCE LA406SEPLANA/ERG4RL9/rTECT VTE SUMMARY (r' �/ / \ - - - 1 LOONEY RICKS KISS 1088 AADT . NASHviLLE, rn 73 AM PEAK I AGRICULTURAL _ + +` 85 PM PEAK OPEN SPACE 4 En�iNEER NOT DEPENDENT ON ' CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES I PHASING . . . . . . . . .. . . . . • SHELBURNE, Vi f4.8 ACRES 1. 7J4AFFiC EAK>bil/E6R + I TND ENGINEERING ni tl 1 . OSSIPEE, NH / 1• 4AACS04P,E ARChWECT / LAND -WORKS / / C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . MIDDLEBURY, VT I / PHASE Z - - - •I . - . PROJECT TITLE: / W FIELDS I I/ �-,EDGE . . . " . . . . . . . " . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . SOUTH VILLEIGE MAXIMUM OF - - S.—h D-11.sl 99 UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / y ±18.2 ACRES \ " . SPEAR STREET AND EN ROAD . ' . ' ' • . . . . • . • • l • . . • • SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT W -- . . . . . . . . " . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . AGRICULTURAL I y OPEN SPACE . r NOT DEPENDENT ON r PHASING . . . . . . . . . . . . .t I f17.9 ACRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . .�. . . . . MAIN ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 1738 AADT I W I DA" CHECTD D lummoN 167 AM PEAK I a 11-5-D4 DSM REVISED LOT LAYOUTS 72-23.01 DSM REVISED TRAFFIC VOLUME ESTIMATES 137 PM PEAK y 1' ' i. . . . . . . , . . . . I y MASTER FUTURE 100 . . • . . . . . . . . . . PLAN ------ _ o STUDENT scHooL SITE ..... " " ... " .. PHASING rJ t5.9 ACR ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . �` .`: • NORTH I I t! I 1 As DATE DRARING NUNBER 1 I AUGUST, 2004 I A� I I C 1. = 100' S1.2 M TER P N -- ND. I I _ I _ - - ALous'r. '100,t" 01243 + I FUTURE 100 STUDENT SCHOOL SITE ±5.9 ACRES- 0 III 0�\ 1 I ' If SOUTH ENTRANCE VTE SUMMARY 940 AADT 59 AM PEAK 67 PM PEAK AORMIURAL OM SPACE NOT DEPENDENT ON PHASING 6.0 ACRES Iill S, NO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED Of Put qsb If I L`� ............ .......... .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .. . . . . . . . . OPEN A WITH RE RATIO AND ACRES PLANS PREPARED BY: CML ENGINEERM ASDOCKTES, INC. P(Xf 1115 b2 'ELBURVE, VT 05482 FAY 802485-2271 wkiba %f DfUNN AWY cHr.cxm DSM OpRovo DSM APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: LAW LWPLAAMERARCH17ECT LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVZLLE, 7N cm/ ENaNEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT rAHAW BVGAVEM TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH L0AXrAFE LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILLAGE Soxith Burlinxton. Vermont� SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT P 3 / ` _ -- XIMUM F ITS • DATE clacm pimmm OPEN -SPA 11-5-w DSM REVISED LOT LAYOUTS • f7li RESTORATION ND WALKWAY IMPROVE ENTS I DSM REVISED LOT LAYOUTS, ROAD ALIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . P12. . AC . . . . . . . . . . . MASTER PLAN PHASING SOUTH DATE DRATENG NUMOM AUGUST, 2004 SCA� 1'.100, S1.3 FPNOT. ND. MASTER PLAN h AUGUST, 2004 01243 0 PLANS PREPARED BY: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /'* CML ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AWY .If . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHECKED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "PROVE . . . . . . . OPEN SPACE - - - - - - - - Dsm NTH RESTORATION AND APPLICANT: WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . ..... illl.6 ACRES .......... SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. .... ............ PROJECT CONSULTANTS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAND LWPLANAERARCH17ECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOONEY RICKS KISS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NASHVILLE, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CML A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT TRAMC EAMES? TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE, NH LANDSCAPE ARCM OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILIAGE . . . . . . . . South . . . . . . . SPEAR STREET AND . . . . . . . . . . ALLEN ROAD . . . . . . SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT . . . . . . . . . . EASI ENTRANCE DAM M� RMMON V16 ISUMMAM PEAK RY 11-5-04 Dsm REIASED LOT LAYOUTS AADT 12-2}04 Dsm REV SED L07 LAYOUTS, ROAD ALIGNMENT 16 PM PEAK MASTER PLAN PHASING EAST Al DATE RA.". "um — AUGUST, 2004 11-100, SlA MASTER PLAN PR.. — AUGLIST, 2004 01243 PLANS PREPARED BY: PRO"T DOW PROIECT PARCEL = 24S ACRES ZONING - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: SNG.E PAULY. �TA 2000 SF MN. LOTOGY. STJ -86MN. LOTOLLECTOPo-100 PT MNA(UM SETBACKS FROM 2OFT SIDE LOFT AEAR 30FT 50 FRONT YARD SETBACK ON ALL DESKNATED COLLECTOR ROADS MULn-FAULY M-L N. 1 oT AREA - 12,000 � - tzo c4c'o�tF RR - no MA RESIDENTIAI. DENSITY-1.2 MNMUM SETBACKS FRONT 2OFT SEE 20 FT REAR 30 FT 50 FRONT YARD SETBACK ON ALL DESIGNATED COLLECTOR PC" COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS MAXMUM BULDING FtEVSFNGBj,LD'GCZRAR� PROPOSED BUILDING COVEG, MAY4NUM LOT COVERAGE-e EXSTNG LOT COVERAGE -% PROPOSED LOT COVEMIG:-7.2% OWNER OF RECOORD.- PAUL R. GAULK/NS P.O. BOX 82 LYNDONVILLE, VT 05851 APPLICANT.' THE RETROVEST COMPANIES 70 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE BURLINGTON, VT 05401-3830 MaIECTLOC47JgN.- 1840 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 06403 [EEL-- 409 101h A--Sw1h,SNI.408 _ N..hNll., T.nn.ww37203 T.I.phon, 615 M61110 Fax 61726112 I �lu I F.. OR W14 AWY CHECEID DSM DSM I �\ APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. PROJECT CONSULTANTS: 44AD USE AL4N fWARCH17ECT LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHVILLE, TN CML EAKi/NEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT TIR4f19C EyaffEER TND ENGINEERING OSSIPEE. NH L4NDSCAPE ARCH17FCT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILLAGE S at4 Baelin ton, Vecnont SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT DEVELOPMENT AREA RESTRICTED AREA 3UMM6N LOT LAWS, ROAD 1 RESTRICTED AREA SITE PLAN DATE M.Iw G 1Vvm AUGUST, 2004 1-� . 200' C2.5 , MASTER PLAN --- AUGUST, AUGUST, 2004 01243 6 I I 1 — — __.� GRAPHIC SCALE c D+ PE4P ) � 1 loch 200 7t — — PLANS PREPARED BY: TND ENGINEERING ENGINEERING CONSULTANT IOSSIPEE, NH I I 1 1 DRARN AWY CHECKED DSM — — APPROVED DSM APPLICANT: ISOUTH VILLAGE 1 COMMUNITIES, LLC. I IPROJECT CONSULTANTS: 1 LAAIDLSEPLAmemmLY//7FCT 1 LOONEY RICKS KISS I NASHVILLE, IN CML BV[LiVBJi 1 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT TND ENGINEERING 1 OSSIPEE, NH 1 I LAMDACAPE ARCh"WT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT I 1 PROJECT TITLE: — — SOUTH VILLAGE South Daclin ton. Vecmone 1 SPEAR STREET AND 1 ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT �— LEGEND ale BV-66 Sr-6o ST50P 1 STSoPa ST-6OPb I ST-54P _1 ST-62Pb + .._ — ST-60b - -- - ST50Pe i37�1i ST-60 RD-50 AL-25 DATE I CHECKED Rmom I1-5-04OSIA REVISED ROAD LAYOUT t2-22-01OSM IREvrAD LOT LAYOUTS, ROAD ALIGNIOT \ � STREET HIERARCHY PLAN DAM URARING XT AUGUST, 2004 1' - 200' OF /�: TER PLAN --- Nn. AUGUST 2D01 01243 Note: PiANS FREPAPPI P)! All work to be performed in accordance with 7 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, and the Village of Jericho. Details should be modified to the above reference specifications. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. - -- -- -- - — 802405.= FAX 8024652271web'� 7— AArY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... DSM 0MITA, DSM APPL14. ANT: . . . . . ............... . . . . . . SOUTH VILLAGE ..............o ....... : . , . , . , . ... , COMMUNITIES, LLC. .................... ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... PROJECT' CONSULTANT ........ ... ............... ...... . . . . . . LISE PL4NNERIARCHIrECT ......... : . . . . . . LOONEY RICKS KISS . .............. ....... NASHVILLE TN ........................... ...... . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . CIVIL ENGINEER ................ ........ CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ........ ....... SHELBURNE. VT . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... CONNECT TO-EXISTINGi - ... .... . ..... Man 12" WATER LINE•I• TND ENGINEERING ........... .......... J ........... OSSIPEE. NH ................. ...... ........... LANDSCAPE AMN17ECT LAND -WORKS ............. r ....... ....... MIDDLEBURY VT . . . . . . . . . . h. . . . . . i CONNECT TO EXISITIVO _J 1 GRAVITY SEWER LINE. ....... ....... X. SPEAR STREET AND .77 ALLEN ROAD ...... J SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT .......... LEGEND SEWER WATER 00 A, A )t A, Fa ----- ----- CONNECT TO EXISkNG C DATE CHECKEF 12" WATER LINE T- PE -EL r r rtKID 0 of it I She Ili E? SEWER + WATER MASTER PLAN PATE AI,F AUGUST. 2004 I' = 200' It, E S 01243 .. LAN. PREPARED BY: --.-_-_- _ PLANS 1 I I I i 1 1 y 1 I P.O. BOX a&: SHE1911gIIE, V7 rom evzgxszJeJ ecacasszn rax w.w.ow.t.am APPLIED ECOLOGICALAaYCONSULTANTS 777 { 1 AWY cxecice, _ ....Y.••, D5M _ T \ tl •.• WM \ 1 ) f - --f r / I / ` I• ' 1 -` / I r .�� I t j•I , I 1, II �,\\ ,` Ir .. •, 1 +I ,Irl I1��,: /'.. ..` . . AFPLIC.4NT: .... •.........,�� .T .. , `) \� '\ I\ +I 11 I I I '� !I J��• I ::.:.:...::..:.::::'.'._..:� SOUTH VILLAGE � \'- l i,r�� _��_,�_ •� Ir//r i I � � y � \I\'ijtiiilYllll i•=iii ��•� _1 I hI I COMMUNITIES, LLC. .•\\\ r I I p•'lll .... �, 1 If , t ! •r i /III . ... . PROJECT CONSULTANTS: ....)... •:.�•/ ...:: [AndusNRrHa/ \ I, LOONEY RICKS KsS -..: :. ... / :. I NASHVILLE,7N .'.-.. . Y � \ . . .. , I 1 Itt` (\I \� /.% ..... 1 Ill I /� C/Y/L, ENO/NEEH J ,'"� _,� , , I ` J: (�.:�.�:•:,:,�:,1L ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES `•I \ ♦ _ -; �!') •'�'•:•:•;_:•;•'• - /. .l \I ' 1�•• '� 1 I I ` ( •',� ..... .. _ _ - .:: CIVIL SHELBURNE.VT -- tee ? = « / / J �t I I ; �.•� `\1I \ �J ( 7RfFfAC ENG/NEER '-.,. /I �IIII ul!1l I�;'1,, ! _•� I� ' ; 1 I' I II i;`1\\\. \ .�.'. I 1 I'•.�•1' f ...:'......: •- 1 TND ENGINEERING .......... OSSIPEE• NH Ll I:I : , - ` + `\Y r 1 1 ,� I `� •\ •' I LANDSCAPE ARLYfl7FCT LAND -WORKS li I 1� , '^..i. �✓_++ ....'.'..'. `II .•- ! i�1 ..'.L'�' ' I ; I 'I I f r.\\' �1 MIDDLEBURY,VT - I i _ `_`�_ _ ! 1 1 I - i.. Y• I I ...... .... ~n r .. ... \\ `\ 1 I j I I ( % M_ PROJECT TITLE: --- �+ , ! /� - :::.. ... .. .. I 1, 1��.1 III •••Y� I 1 - \� aoate_s_u-r_IJ O.[a.• Veeaoat : :. r SOUTH VILLAGE `+�I �\ \I' I t :..' =�• I '�L�ll'T'-\\ �I. .. 1 1_ SPEAR STREET AND NN ALLEN ROAD j 1 I r - , -- - �;1•,% \ \ •� ; 1 14 I I I II j �'�,_ ` SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT ' \ I II II t, , __ �.. , i \t `I 11 '` � \f Lis ' \ I J .'.)r.. _ i; ll�l / -� .-��..�\\\ I I': I � t\ �` I I��IIII�..�-.\_tea\\ ``. I\\1\ ••- ,\' j / 1 �I Y , \ , \ \ ^ r ��.. 1 '•i J �/'� - �... •.� I�PI // %�Jli ,II I I I f : � •i 1,�i�1 \\� \ _ � l ' I _— �)�I, PROPOSED ST RM — I , \ I % ,x• O \ DRAINAGE L/N (n'P.) , I + � ) , 1 .' I / i `• � I �� I � i � .' '� � '.J.' 1 11�"~'' I \ 1\ r+y I =,11� DAre cxx."E�1D nmsoN j, J /r�'. ,'1 1 ! .\. , I I / / I 1 •` \.• 11-5-OA D:A1 REWa C- 0:T LAICki1S - 12-730/ DSM RENSED L61 LAYOMS, ROAD AIKAMENT \ \ 1 GRADING + DRAINAGE OVERALL FLAN ,I DATE DROINC Numm,. '— AUGUST, 2004 LRAFF11c :i('ALE, ��. 1'=2 C51 I i IN s'EF.T i J I I '01243 1 r ' 100 PLANS PREPARED BY: p1ppommor- 7' B' 5' IQ' IQ' REC. PATH ` \ CML ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. It I 1 /111 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS CON/SPAN BRIDGE SYSTEM I 1 1 oxAWN Ah/ ALL AWY � 2 DSM BUFF70 IMPACT A EA = 4967 FT APP^ Oim 1 sm APPWCANT: � � 1 / SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC. WETL D IMPACT AREA = 76 FT Z PROJECT CONSULTANTS: I ' LAMD &W FL.4A(MWARGVfl CT LOONEY RICKS KISS NASWILLE, TN CMY ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT TND ENGINEERING 1 OSSIPEE, NH LAMOSC01PE AgChMCT LAND -WORKS '•^�•.,-,` MIDDLEBURY, VT 1 PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH VILLAGE So h Bailin to Veemon. SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT WETLAND I PACT EA = 1469 FT 2 356 I � / 354 352 NI` BUFFER IMPACT AREA = 4505 FT 2 / *- I510N +s-2ral osu RENSEO L01 LAYOUYOUT$ ROAD AL16NAIENi 350 348 WETLAND CROSSING / PLAN CON SPAN � BRIDGE SYSTEM GRAPH SCALE � / oAtt otu>tmc NUMB" OCT., 2004 S♦.101 GATE W(Aj, Jnch 10 ri. 211+00 212+00 213+00` / 01243 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PI Al NING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VETIVIONI' 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 December 30, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 30 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 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, January 4, 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. MEMO .South Burlington Planning & Boni To: South Burlington DeAelnt Review Board From: Juli Beth Hinds, AIC Director of Planning RE: South Village Allen .Road - Midland Avenue Connector Road Date: December 29, 2004 cc: Chuck Hafter, City Manager This memo summarizes the City Council's position on the timing and necessity of constructing the full east -west road connection between Allen Road at Spear Street, and Midland Avenue at Dorset Street, as part of Phase i of the South Village project. It is Council's position that the connector road must be built with first phase of construction. The road may be designed as a more neighborhood -scaled connector rather than a larger "collector" roadway envisioned in the Official Map and Comprehensive Plan, but a suitable two-lane roadway of a width and profile acceptable to the Director of Public Works must be constructed and opened to traffic simultaneously with construction of the first phase of this project. A development agreement between City Council and the developer regarding the financing of the roadway has been drafted and will be considered by Council as soon as possible. The DRB should assume that this agreement will be worked out, and condition the permit such that the road is built when the first phase is initiated. MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Juli Beth Hinds, AICP, Director of Planning & Zonin Brian Robertson, Associate Planner 13-0_ - RE: South Village Master Plan Continued Public Hearing, January 4, 2005 Date: December 28, 2004 On Tuesday night, the DRB will be continuing review of the Master Plan application for South Village. This will represent the third meeting devoted to the review of this project. Staff believes that the DRB should move towards closing the public hearing on the master plan on Tuesday night, and making a decision on it shortly thereafter. As all of you know by now, this is a very complex project because of its size and the number of unique elements included in it, such as the farm, school site, and ecological restoration plan. Because of this complexity, it is very important that we begin to focus strictly on the outstanding and unresolved issues related to the Master Plan's conformance with the Land Development Regulations. It is essential that your meeting time be limited to dealing with these specific issues that are directly related to ensuring the best planning and design outcome for this project. The remaining unresolved issues, and the information that will be reviewed on Tuesday night, are detailed below. A separate short memo from Juli Beth Hinds on the timing, design and need for the connector road is attached. 1. Traffic Impact Goal: The DRB must determine that the project and associated roadways will be sufficient to ensure safe circulation, and to ensure that the nearest signalized intersection (proposed to be at Allen Road and Spear Street) will have a level of service "D" or better at full build -out. The DRB also must establish a maximum number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends (VTEs) for the entire Master Plan. A revised traffic study addendum, prepared by Rick Chellman, was included in the packets you received. On Tuesday, the DRB will receive the Technical Review Memorandum prepared by Jon Dietrich for the City. The applicant's engineer will attend the hearing to address any traffic concerns raised by staff, the DRB and Jon Dietrich. Staff recommends the Master Plan approval include any necessary requirements or improvements identified in the Technical Review Memo. MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning 2. Utilities, Services and Infrastructure The DRB will receive memos from the four involved City department heads regarding streets, water, fire and sewer (Bruce Hoar, Jay Nadeau, Doug Brent and Bill Szymanski). Staff recommends that once these four have signed off on the plans, that these issues be considered settled. 3. Site Coverage and Lot Sizes Goal: As part of Master Plan approval, the DRB must set a limit on the maximum impervious coverage of the entire site, the maximum building coverage of the entire site, and a minimum residential lot size within each "pod" or "phase" of the project. The applicant will provide staff and the DRB with their recommendations for these limits. With respect to site and building coverage, staff recommends that so long as these are within the maximums for the Southeast Quadrant district, these should be approvable. 4. Project Layout and Development Areas A key issue for Master Plan approval is the location, extent, and configuration of the three "pods" or development areas for the phases of this project. The DRB must determine two things: (1) Whether the locations, extents, and configurations of the proposed development pods are appropriate; and (2) Which elements of the development plan within each "pod" should be reviewed during preliminary plat for the specific pod, rather than at the more conceptual Master Plan phase (i.e. landscaping, driveway curb cuts, and the finished grade for the single-family lots). 5. Agriculture Component For Tuesday's meeting, it's essential for the DRB to keep in mind that the details of the proposed agricultural operation are not in the legal jurisdiction of the DRB. At this point, discussion of the agricultural component in public meetings is moot. This is an issue of state jurisdiction, and the extent of the operation is clearly shown on the plans. Therefore, staff has suggested, for all concerned, that the applicant eliminate any depictions of the agricultural component, and simply draw a border around the area and label it "Agricultural Use" on the plans. MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning 6. Ecological Restoration Plan and Wildlife At the last hearing, the DRB heard the applicant's restoration proposal. While this is not a requirement of the LDRs, and there are many issues to be clarified, staff would discourage the DRB from getting into a debate over the details of the restoration plan or a detailed rebuttal presentation. With respect to the details of the restoration plan, staff reviewed the written and meeting records carefully, and sent a list of questions and key points to the applicant for response. The applicant has since then submitted a comprehensive ecological restoration and management program, and responded to these questions and key points in a memorandum from Dave Marshall, dated December 24, 2004. Both of these documents were included in the packets you received. It is staffs opinion that the identified issues have been adequately addressed by the applicant. The DRB must use its best judgment, based on evidence presented at the public hearing and in the written record for the project, to determine whether the City's standards for wildlife habitat protection and open space values have been met. This is not a contested process, and therefore the DRB should put a strict time limit on any presentations of other evidence or rebuttal information. The applicant's proposed Ecological Restoration Plan, and the proposed locations and uses of open spaces, must be evaluated against the criteria in Section 15.18(B) of the Land Development Regulations regarding protection of open space values, and protection of wildlife habitat values. CIVIL ENGINEERING A1'S0_'500C1AfE'5, UNC, 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 December 24, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application - Response to Staff Memorandum Dear Mr. Robertson. - Thank you for taking the time to review the November 22, 2004 memorandum from Juli Beth Hinds concerning the review of the Community Land Management Plan for the South Village project. In support of the effort to bring closure or a better level of understanding to the identified issues, we have provided this summary of the applicant's position in italicized font on each issue. Section 1. Management of Neighborhood Facilities and Activities 1.0 Recreation Path: FOF: The City will own and manage the recreation path. The applicant concurs subject to the final easement language relating to maintenance standards for the path. 2.0 Sidewalks: FOF: Sidewalks within the City right-of-way will be City owned and managed. The applicant concurs subject to the final language relating to maintenance standards for the sidewalks to be outlined in a proposed development agreement with the City. 3.2 Quiet Path Management/Maintenance: FOF: The community association will be responsible for the general maintenance of the paths, which includes clearing of debris and other foreign matter. No issue. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 2 of 9 December 24, 2004 FOF: The paths will not be plowed during the winter months, and patrons shall enter and use the paths at their own risk. Applicant would like to add language that snow surface maintenance (i.e. for cross country skiing for example) would not be precluded. 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 been noted on the plan?. The intention was to have parking occur within the designated on -street parking spaces as well as the off-street pocket parks and within the school grounds after normal operating hours. These trail head parking locations have been identified on the enclosed draft signing plan. 6.0 Recreation Field and Amenities: Question: The plan states that recreation fields and facilities will be private. Has this been represented to the DRB? Yes, at the last DRB hearing this was clarified by Mr. David Scheuer. 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. It appears that the signage requirements can be addressed through Section 8 Master Signage Permits of the Sign Ordinance. 8.0 Back Yards: Note: It should be noted in the homeowners' association documents that the City cannot enforce maintenance and fertilization guidelines. This will be included in the HOA documents. 8.4 HumanANildlife Conflict Preventative Measures: Question: Have fenced and screened trash and recycling (dumpster) areas been specified for all multi -family and non-residential building on property? Not at this time. Although it is the applicant's preference to have these facilities inside the confines of the buildings, it is anticipated that these measures will be depicted on the plans as part of a site plan Mr. Brian Robertson Page 3 of 9 December 24, 2004 approval process for the >3 unit buildings and the school. 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? This would apply to the large tracts of common land only. Common land should be prohibited from mowing if it is shown as "unmowed" on the landscaping plan. We concur. 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. This permit application will be submitted to the State in early January, 2005, and will include all of the proposed activities previously outlined for this project. Question: For the City to make positive findings under Section 12.02(E)(3) on Class II Buffers, and Class III buffers and wetlands, we need something that describes how the activities will meet standards (a) through (c) on Page 158 of the zoning regulations. We have summarized the responses to standards (a) through (c) below. - (a) The encroachments will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store floodwaters adequately. The characteristics of the main wetland bodies have been respected by minimizing the proposed encroachments into the buffers and wetlands. This is accomplished by utilization of wide clear spans for the three proposed bridge structures. The proposed wetland impacts will represent less than 2% of the entire wetland acreage. This coupled with the inclusion of the Stormwater Treatment Train components will offset the proposed impacts so that the wetlands and buffers will still have ample capacity to carry and store floodwaters. (b) The encroachments will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to State standards. Ample area has been provided to site the required stormwater management facilities in accordance with the State's Stormwater Mr. Brian Robertson Page 4 of 9 December 24, 2004 Management Rules (2002) and recent amendments. This project will be required to acquire a Stormwater Discharge Permit subject to the requirements of the WIP's for Bartlett Brook, Monroe Brook and Potash Brook. (c) The impacts of the encroachments on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by the appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering and/or other mitigation measures. The wetlands provide a series of functions which are mitigated in the following manners: Floodwater Retention - Any loss will be mitigated through the inclusion of additional stormwater management facilities located in the upland areas of the project to pre -development peak flows in accordance with State permitting standards. Wildlife Habitat - Will be mitigated through the creation of a low profile roadway for the Dorset Farm connection or widened (and tall) clear span at the remaining three bridge crossings. Additional mitigation will be provided through the proposed ecological restoration program. Hydrophytic Vegetation Habitat - Any losses in vegetation will be mitigated through the restoration program which will enhance the presence and form of the native species. Open Space and Aesthetics - Additional developable lands adjacent to the main wetland and the great swamp have been set aside as open space to offset the impacts of the proposed road crossings. Erosion Control - An erosion prevention and sediment control program has been established consistent with the State's NPDES permit for large construction sites to ensure that the temporary/permanent loss of this function will not adversely effect the ability of the wetlands and associated buffers to provide appropriate levels of erosion prevention. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 5of9 December 24, 2004 Section 2. Ecological Restoration Program 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 (10)), 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? Once the final restoration plan has been developed a cost estimate will be prepared. (2) Who will be responsible for oversight of the restoration plan? The applicant and then the homeowners' association. (3) Who will do the purchasing of materials for the plan? The restoration plan contractor. (4) Who will oversee the laborers? The restoration plan contractor. (5) Who will pay the laborers? The restoration plan contractor. (6) Who will train volunteers? The restoration plan contractor. (7) At what points in the process, if any, will volunteers be used? This will be determined in time for the final plat submittal. 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? During closing, an information package will be provided to each new homeowner. There will be an on -going information program developed through the homeowners' association. 2.2 Wildlife Use Patterns 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. No issue. 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 Mr. Brian Robertson Page 6 of 9 December 24, 2004 transitional areas with adjoining uplands, and primarily in the northeastern areas of the property. No issue. 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 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. We would propose the inclusion of the following additional language in the amended Community Land Management Plan. "The South Village site present opportunities for connecting native plant communities and valuable wildlife habitat, using greenways and other natural open space corridors. Natural ecological systems for stormwater management, such as the Stormwater Treatment Train, will help achieve this objective. The proposed site design leaves the entire eastern portion of the property in an undeveloped condition with restored natural communities and enhanced habitat for wildlife. Only the roadway and quiet paths will intrude into this natural area, and these improvements will be constructed carefully to encourage continued movements by animals to and from adjacent properties and within the varied habitats of South Village." 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 requirements of 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 cover). Staff: Staff will need to review carefully the roadway connection, and we appreciate the detailed drawings that have been submitted. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 7 of 9 December 24, 2004 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? Yes. 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? Yes, this will be included in the final restoration plan. Section 3. Restoration and Management Activities 3.1 Introductions Comment: I believe it would be helpful for staff and the applicant 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? The applicant will prepare a draft MOA for staff to review as part of the final plat application . 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? A site specific draft restoration plan with specifications has been developed for this project and has been submitted under separate cover. 3.5 Restoration Stage Activities Question/Comment: A general question and comment related to Section 3.5 or 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. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 8of9 December 24, 2004 (1) How will the restoration areas, such as the "colorful native plan 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? These will be depicted on the final restoration plans. (2) What's the best administrative process for amending a landscaping plan with restoration areas? We would propose language be included in the Master Plan Permit that allows for minor updates to be handled administratively provided that they are consistent with the areal limits and means and methods outlined in the specifications. To what extent can general restoration areas be established on an overall site plan now? These areas will be identified on the final restoration plans to be submitted as part of the final plat application. (3) How will this be integrated with the City's landscaping cost requirement? Those components of the restoration plan necessary as part of the wildlife mitigation component of the project will be prepared as a separate bonded cost from the landscaping components located within the public right-of-way and those remaining components located on private property. 3.6 Management Stage Activities Question: When will "management units" be defined? The management units will be depicted on the final management plan. Section 4. Agricultural Management Plan 4.0 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. This language will be included in the homeowners' deeds. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 9of9 December 24, 2004 Comment: A nursery, mentioned under 2.0, would override that exemption, and become a use regulated under the City Land Development Regulations. Duly noted. This completes our summary of the applicant's position on the highlighted issues. 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: Draft Signage Plan (11 "x 17") cc: David Scheuer Michelle Holgate Dave Capen David Raphael (all with attachments) C A 1 l ,et\01243\Master\RobertsonMaster4. wpd SIGN TYPE LEGEND OPrimary Entry O Secondary Entry Connection to Spear Street (2) O Automobile Directional Path (quantity and locations TBD) Building ID It Parking Area ID & Regulations (2) e 1� ak OWarning Crossing 1) BUINGs \Usk / (quantities opptsa ., I TB � at FD) �� Oarm Stop and Dismount 1 Primary Trailhead i Secondary Trailhead Special pedestrinn wayfinding signs to 1� A ❑ Path Access located throughout farm property as needed l r aPath Directional / Connection to So. Burl. Path' rI / FARM I Rec. Path Interpretive J id i Connection to Q Quiet Path Interpretive - �' D L 1 PREVIEW Spear St. / Allen Rd. CErrrEx This plan only. Final Is for general location purposes sign types/locations T.B.D. 7 ' —�' ""�-L� tl : •r, 111 I I `I � _ Street signs to be located throughout neighborhoods as needed II (2) aach I . .... Connection to Spear Street Path a A ' Flold lla Fgld ANDSCHOOL (2) Connection to Nowland Farm Rd. Rec. Path )® 1, �I Wetland and Sadgt Meadow Restorada t Pond/Reforested Wetland Restoration Train Ai WIldlife Habitat I I I I I' I A Top" lazes to be Located at P Intervals on Quiet Paths / II I I I I I Mixed Hardwood Forest 11 II II I �I I V II I - �.-Connection to' -I °._ Midland Ave. and r> Dorset St. Paft e r l d� (2) PLANS PREPARED BY: LandWorks Mddhbury V-r" �� f-00.38&18.BOlt fax: B02.388.1050 infoglanthkmt. MH/MR — D DR ♦PPRaVEO DR APPLICANT: SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC, PROJECT CONSULTANTS PLANNER/ARCHITECT ular LOONEY RICKS KISS NASHWLLE, TN CIVIL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES SHELBURNE, VT TRAFFIC ENGINEER TND ENGINEERING OSSFEE, NH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SROADHEAD, WI PROJECT TITLE. SOUTH VLLLAGE South O u r l l o u t o n, v— m— SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT NM� A,� Rosy s� �w:ro LOCATION MAP MASTER SIGN PLAN nn • r l ," RE\/,. VN NIW N—EN DEC. 2004 aLE C _ NTS J 01243 SENT 6v: R7TROVE871 0OMPANIES; 802 863 1339; SPP-7-04 'r22AM; PA3E 2<< The Retrovest Companies b V 7 L 0 r t S A D E V E L O P E R S By Fans: 846-4101 Scpternber 7, 2004 Re: Soath Village Communities, LLC. Mr. Brian Robertson Department of .Planning and Zoning City ofBur&glun, Vemiont Dear Brian: Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, please be advised that we are requesting a postponement of the hearing scheduled for this evening. It has come to my attention in the last twenty-four hours that our lead expert, Rick Chellrnan, cannot be available due to a very serious family medical emergency. we believe it is in the interest of all concerned that our presentation begins with Mr. C.heilman's introduction of the project, as this will provide the most clarity to a campiex project. Accordingly, we appreciate your flexibility and regret this inconvenience to your staff, the D�yel4paipnt Review Board and the public. Sincere y, r-_ David Scheuer President 70 South Wnoo:ki Avenur. Burling -on, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1925 r 802-863-1339 Ww'•v,rCtYOVPSt.C7tT1 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 December 27, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Minutes Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the November 16, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. T' 'T'D N -RE1C,'RE- TDIN DEER, 7RTNIENT STREEETI S 6-�UT H 3Ji7 0541 03 '77� r, —Z-0 �-L (80") '0-'I6J-4i08 FAX: 346-4101 THOMAS HUBBARD..C. U RECREATION DIRECTOR TODD GOODWIN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Brian Robertson FROM: Tom Hubbard RiE: Rletrovest DATE: December 10, 2004 At the Dec. 6`' meeting of the RPC, David Marshall, representing Retrovest, made a presentation on the proposed recreation path in the proposed South Village development. The committee voted to support the path as presented by David, which loops away from Spear Street in the northwest quadrant of the development. The paths the committee recommends are shown in blue on the map made in Aug. 2004 (5.0), and a copy was left for the committee. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the recreation path be constructed to city standards from Spear Street and Allen Road to Midland Ave in Dorset Farms as part of the Phase I construction. VERMONT. RECREAT:ON,-'P'TE) PARKAS SOCIATION - NATIONALRECREATION AND PARKAS SCCIATIf] H 11 / 18/04 Dear DRB Vice Chairman Boucher, We were unable to attend the DRB meeting on 11/16 so we thought we should write this letter outlining our thoughts about the new South Village development. We have a concern, we see some good things and lastly we'd like to point out an opportunity. First Our Concern: The street is gradually changing over from open farmland to residential. The proposed school is out of character for Spear Street and it will actually make the street have a commercial feel. In addition, it will introduce a lot of traffic for students and faculty right at peak times. We don't think it should be approved. The Good Points: We applaud the developers for trying to site the development to be as hidden from the street as possible. The farm is a good use for the land on the frontage to maintain the view corridor and it will help remind us all where Vermont has come from. We also like the dense design of the village and the narrow streets. The Opportunity: Recent changes to Spear St. in the area of this development, like the bike path built on the west side of the street & the right turn lane to Allen Rd, have taken land from the west side of Spear Street. Recently, a traffic engineering firm suggested moving the center line of the road further west to accommodate a bike path on the east side. As you are probably aware, the road is very close to all of the houses on this side of the street. Moving the traffic closer will make it even more difficult (and dangerous) for us to get out of our driveways. In addition, the traffic noise in the front of my house is very high. It is almost impossible to have a conversation in our front yard and we hesitate to open any of the windows along the front unless it is very hot because of the noise. Moving the road 2-3' closer will only make things worse. We have a different suggestion: let's put the northbound bike path and required turn lanes for South Village on the undeveloped land along South Village. My reasons are three fold: 1. this would preserve what little buffer there is for all the homes on the west side of the road instead of moving the traffic closer to them. 2. the east side of the street is largely open from Carolyn Long's property south so it would have no impact if it was decided now during the planning stages. 3. For some reason, in this area, Spear St. curves to the west. Putting these features on the east side will in effect straighten the road a bit. Perhaps the street itself is not actually centered on it's right of way and has gradually moved west over time in this area. Thank you for your consideration of our thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, k 57 Don & Lynn�(Zingspea DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 November 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; L. Kupferman, M. Kupersmith, C. Bolton, G. Quimby, R. Farley, M. Boucher Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Marshall, M. Hall, D. Schurer, B. Terhune, D. Wetzel, P. Clifford, J. Anderson, D. Barton, B. Hibbitts, B. Cimonette, J. Crawford, S. Dopp, A. Gilman, D. Capen, S. Apfelbaum, M. Holgate, R. Foley, K. Lange, C. Long, P. DiStefano, A. Bianchi, D. Arms, F. Smith, L. Moore, H. Davison, D. & P. Allison, C. & J. Bertin, L. Bresee, L. Yabnkowski, A. Netzel, J. Benoit, D. Zhou, M. Gu, E. Klaehne, E. & R. Floyd, W. Wheeler, J. LeDuc, L> & J. Palmer, S. Moore, K. Fiske 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. 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 Street: Mr. Marshall said that one thing that has changed over time is the reallocation of some land uses, specifically in the "Ridge" neighborhood. He showed this on the plan. He also showed the Phase I and Phase II development areas and the major project roadway and areas where the road crosses the wetland. A recreation field has been identified near the proposed school and also a recreation area in the southern part of the development. Mr. Marshall showed where the Rec Path will be located. The Rec Path Committee is OK with this location, but the developer is open to other ideas. The developer met with the Fire Chief and Bruce Hoar regarding types of designs that need to be implemented in Phase I. There is a recommendation from the Fire Chief for openings between street trees. There will still be the same number of trees. There is a plan for how open spaces will be managed and maintained. Mr. Dinklage asked for confirmation that Phase I can be built independently and that the same is true for Phase 11. He also asked for confirmation that recreation areas will be -1- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 private and that the project meets all Vermont stormwater regulations. Mr. Marshall made those certifications and confirmations. Mr. Kupferman asked if the school plot will be subdivided. Mr. Marshall said it will sit on its own lot. They will come back with a site plan approval process for that. Mr. Kupferman asked if there is any plan for traffic calming on the sensitive part of Midland Avenue. Mr. Marshall said that is being looked at. Mr. Bolton asked about activity on the farm parcel relative to pesticides, also whether this land could be leased to another farm operation. Mr. Marshall said there would be no use of pesticides as this is a certified organic operation. Any group coming in would be subject to the same stipulation. Mr. Belair reminded members that all agricultural uses are exempt from local review. Mr. Hall stipulated their commitment to having this be an organic farm. Mr. Bolton asked who would be the controlling institution when the developer is no longer on site. Mr. Schurer said the Homeowners' Association will be acting as landlord. Mr. Hall said the City can also be an enforcement entity to anything agreed to as part of the approval process. Mr. Schurer said there may also be a land trust involvement. Since the traffic report from the technical review consultant was not available, discussion of traffic was postponed until the next hearing. Regarding wetlands, Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a memo from Gustafson identifying additional wetland areas. He asked if these were included in the drawings being reviewed. Mr. Marshall said they were not since they only received them on Friday. He added that they can work with the Gustafson's findings. Mr. Dinklage asked what the closest distance was from Dorset Farms to any part of this project. Mr. Marshall said about 700 feet. He showed this on the plan. Mr. Dinklage asked when the rec path that is part of Phase II would be built. Mr. Marshall showed the Phase I portion of the rec path on the plan. He suggested the possibility of a temporary path from Dorset Farms to a point in Phase I where it would join the more formal path. This would be a mowed path. Regarding the nature of the east -west road, Mr. Dinklage emphasized that this is a connector road, not a corridor. Mr. Kupferman said he didn't think the plan meets the "spirit" of the Master Plan and he personally wasn't sold on the connection to Midland at all. Mr. Bolton said it is a question of whether to try to keep traffic on major roads or to disperse it. He felt that if it is too restrictive to use this road, traffic will stay on the major roads. Mr. Bolton added that he would like to see a development like this somewhere, and he might be more convinced if he saw it. He was not convinced by the narrow streets. Mr. Schurer said there is nothing like this within a day's ride. The closest place would be in Maryland. There is a much smaller project in Stowe that would provide a scale of a specific street, not of the whole project. -2- "i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 Mr. Belair noted there is a memo from staff "de-emphasizing" this road as a corridor. Mr. Boucher noted that Autumn Hill Road was removed as a connection which he felt eliminates the need for this road to be a major east -west road. He was comfortable with it as a connector, not a corridor. Mr. Robertson noted the applicant will be providing a 60 foot right-of-way which would be enough for a corridor. Mr. Terhune said he could live with a connector road, and he lives right where it would be. Mr. Arms said they also would prefer a connector, not a corridor. He said their big concern is with people coming to Midland Avenue and then "going off to the races." Mr. Wetzel noted that Dorset Farms people have submitted a petition against a connector. They would be even more opposed to a corridor. Mr. Wetzel asked where water utilities would be coming from for Phase I. Mr. Marshall said the water main will have to be extended from Dorset Farms. Ms. Clifford asked how many cars are projected per unit and if there is enough parking for them. Mr. Marshall said each site complies with the requirement of 2 spaces per unit. Mr. Schurer added that many of the 2 bedroom units would be occupied by single people. Mr. Anderson, representing Skip Vallee, said he hoped the developer would keep an open mind with regard to the "stuff in the middle," especially with regard to wildlife and wetlands. He felt the road would do severe damage to both. Ms. Barton, also working with Mr. Vallee, asked whether roads have ever been taken off the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dinklage noted that Autumn Hill Road was taken out as a connector road, but it is still in existence. The process to do this is similar to a zoning change. Ms. Hibbitts said she has misgivings because of density which will be creating "a city within a city." She asked if 300+ units are a given. Mr. Dinklage said if the Master Plan is approved, the answer is yes. He noted that the density proposed for this project is "squeaky clean." That is what this property is zoned for. It is a huge piece of property and the number of units proposed fits within the allowable density. Mr. Wetzel asked if there is an Act 250 approval process for the right-of-way. Mr. Dinklage said the right-of-way was shown on the Dorset Farms approval. Mr. Cimonetti suggested some caution on everyone's part. The Comprehensive Plan and the Official City Map are not trivial documents. They are subject to change through public hearing process. He urged caution and emphasized that a development should be looked at in light of an existing Comprehensive Plan. He felt people were on "a slippery slope" when they equivocated between a connector and a corridor. Mr. Anderson said he believed you can't develop over a base density that goes into a restricted area. That would mean only 266 units. The developer in Phase III wants bonus -3- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 density that has never been granted in South Burlington. Mr. Dinklage stressed that there are no wetland buffers that are violated by any of this proposed plan. Ms. Crawford asked if any waivers are being requested. Mr. Dinklage said only for street layout, turning radiuses, etc. Mr. Belair said there may be waivers for lot size and setback from the road. Mr. Dinklage stressed that these waivers are within the purview of the DRB. Mr. Belair said the applicant has offered to work with the city on traffic calming measures. He asked if the applicant is willing to pay for these measures. Mr. Scheuer said they are willing to contribute, especially on the design aspect. He said they would provide design information at the next meeting. Mr. Wetzel suggested talking with Dorset Farms people about this. Ms. Dopp asked how much commitment there is to the farm. Mr. Marshall said the Intervale Foundation has created the plan. Mr. Scheuer said the financial details will have to be worked out with them. Ms. Quimby asked if there would be parking on the 18 foot wetland crossings. Mr. Marshall said no. Mr. Hoar would like those crossings widened to 20 feet. There would be "no parking" signage. Ms. Kupersmith asked about development in restricted areas, specifically the scenic view corridors. Mr. Belair said the original plan was to limit development on major roads; it was never a question of views of mountains, etc. Mr. Marshall showed the restricted areas that would be encroached on. Mr. Apfelbaum then spoke concerning ecological restoration. He began by reviewing the characteristics of a healthy landscape. It would be: diverse, dynamic, productive and "stingy." He noted that typically built landscapes have lower diversity, are unstable and wasteful, and are not sustainable. He showed slides of the degradation of wetland forest areas. He also identified invasive species located on the South Village property. Mr. Apfelbaum then showed a "conservation model" for restoring damaged landscapes. He said this restoration takes an "economic engine" and a culture to accomplish. He added he has done many projects like South Village with outstanding results. Currently, the needs of the present and the future are not being met on this property and are being compromised. Mr. Apfelbaum then showed photos of projects that were designed with wetland restoration in mind. These areas now have 75% less runoff from the land and flood peaks have been reduced 60%. Sediments have been reduced 90% in runoff. Regarding this property, Mr. Apfelbaum identified it as "abandoned agricultural land" dominated by European plants, noxious weeds and poor cover/habitat. The proposed project would restore native grasslands. The forests on the property are now recovering -4- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 from grazing livestock. There is invasion by exotic plants and some bare ground and soil. Mr. Apfelbaum then showed pictures of restored forests and of the steps taken to achieve these results. The pines on the ridge of this property are 50-75 years old. There is a lot of secondary invasion and highly erodable bare ground. The trees are vulnerable to disease, wind, and fire. There is also no diversity of species. The wetlands are dominated by agricultural runoff and the impacts of grazing livestock. There is also no diversity there. Mr. Apfelbaum showed photos of a restored wetland. The hydrological conditions on the property show alteration by agriculture ditches and runoff and a channelized stream. Mr. Apfelbaum outlined the steps for restoration including ditch removal, native landscaping, and pretreatment of water. Mr. Wetzel asked what happens to species that are in the area during restoration. Mr. Apfelbaum said most species are not affected negatively. Mr. Anderson asked how often burning occurs and whether there are health issues from air pollution and herbicides. Mr. Apfelbaum said burning would meet all ordinances, and there is a notification process. Typically burning occurs every 3-5 years and lasts 1-4 hours. Dr. Capen then reviewed wildlife in the area. He said there is a lot of "edge" on the property which is good for wildlife. Some of the wildlife he observed were: coyotes, red fox, white-tailed deer, bobcat, moose, squirrel, chipmunks, weasels, ermine, meadow vole, and Eastern cottontail. There were also 24 species of birds. Dr. Capen said the arrows on the maps that are supposed to identify wildlife corridors are not accurate. The major access to open areas is now Dorset Farms. Dr. Capen said that connectivity is the key for wildlife as they need the ability to move. The bulk of the area will remain connected with this project. 75% of the acreage on the site will remain open. Wetlands would be protected and restored, and residual grasslands would be restored. He felt that young forests can be diversified, and the great swamp should be protected. Mr. Gilman, wetland delineator with William Countryman, said he did the South Village wetland assessment. He noted there can be discrepancies in wetland borders due to weather changes. During the summer of 2004, there was a slight expansion of a few wetland areas. Mr. Gilman said that overall he concurs with Pioneer's report. He felt there is a great opportunity to help the wetlands because of better systems. Ms. Barton noted the area to the south (#8) which is connected to a Class 2 wetland. Mr. Dinklage asked how the applicant would review and control work being done in the buffer whose aim is to improve it. Ms. Hinds said the city would have to coordinate with the District Wetland Coordinator. There may also need to be a performance bond. Ms. Hinds noted there have been cases where the city has had to pursue enforcement for -5- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2004 illegal activities in wetland borders. Mr. Scheuer said the city could hire a third party that the developer would pay for, and this party could oversee the work. Mr. Cimonetti noted the city owns land adjacent to this property. He asked what happens if restoration doesn't occur on the city land. Mr. Apfelbaum said very often the city does get involved. Mr. Wetzel asked if the wetland crossing should be referred back to the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Dinklage said that will be reviewed in detail at Act 250. Mr. Dinklage then asked if the Board would want to require, as part of the approval of the Master Plan, that the applicant have whatever wetland crossing that connects to Midland Avenue completely permitted at all levels. Members said they would. Ms. Kupersmith said she has a problem with the authority on which the Board is basing decisions. She would want to see the documents on the road. Mr. Dinklage stressed that the decision is based on the Official City Map. Mr. Belair added that the Official City Map is a by-law unto itself. Mr. Boucher then moved to continue the application until 4 January 2005. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. i CLERK DATE M Summary of Presentation' to South Burlington Development Review Board David E. Capen, Ph.D, Certified Wildlife Biologist 16 November 2004 Field Surveys I conducted an assessment of wildlife habitat on the South Village site from January through July 2002 and have made follow-up visits to the site on several occasions since that time. The South Village property is distinguished by a diversity of habitat types: five different forest communities, emergent wetlands, pastures that have reverted to brush, grasslands, and a large forested wetland. The quality of most of these sites has been diminished by years of agricultural activities and the spread of numerous exotic invasive species. A field assistant (Tina Scharf, M.S. Wildlife Biology) and I made 18 visits to the site in 2002 to survey mammals and birds. I returned to the site several more times in 2003 and 2004. When searching for tracks of animals in snow, we walked transect lines as a means of assuring that we surveyed the entire site. Occasionally, we left transect lines to follow tracks of a specific animal. Highlights of our field surveys follow: • Coyotes were quite common on the property, detected on 11 of 13 visits. We noted as many as 3 individuals on a single visit. • Red foxes were just as abundant as coyotes, detected on 12 of 13 visits. • White-tailed deer were common in the spring, seen on 7 of 13 visits. We did not see deer tracks regularly during winter months. • Bobcats were detected on only 1 of 13 visits, but there were 2 individual animals. We saw moose tracks on one visit, but bark scars on small trees indicated earlier visits by moose. • Eight other species of small and mid -sized mammals were found on the South Village site. Some other mammals predictably occur in these habitats, but were not detected on our surveys: raccoons, woodchucks, red -backed voles, other species of shrews, and bats. • Twenty-four species of birds were found in the forest or forest edge • Seven species of birds were found in the grasslands, and 8 species were detected that prefer shrubby habitat- ' These are edited notes from a PowerPoint presentation. • Nine more species of birds were found in the wetland habitat types. • One of the wetland bird species was the Northern Harrier, a Species of Special Concern in Vermont. This hawk nests on the ground in or near wetlands and hunts for prey —usually mice —in wetlands and nearby grasslands. Harriers apparently have nested on the South Village site for the past several years since farming practices ceased. Harriers are sensitive to disturbance, thus this species might not persist as a nesting bird with the planned development. • We did not search for amphibians, but at least a dozen species should be found in the mix of forest, swamp, and wetland. Species of Interest Other consultants have focused on four species that might be significantly impacted by proposed development. I'll address each of these below. The American woodcock is a popular game species that conducts courtship displays in the spring, and nests on the ground, usually near forest edges. This species prefers a mix of open fields and shrubs for its evening courtship displays. found woodcock displaying during 2003 and 2004. Its preferred habitat will be altered by planned development. The upland sandpiper is a Threatened species in Vermont. This species was seen on this property years ago when the fields were still pastured and cut for hay. The habitat is no longer suitable for Upland Sandpipers, however. If anything, the planned restoration of grasslands in South Village will improve chances of this species being found here. A biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department mentioned that the South Village site would be good habitat for the Endangered New England cottontail. However, this species may be extinct in Vermont. Other consultants trapped cottontails on this site in 2004 and had samples analyzed genetically. The results confirmed that the animals were Eastern Cottontails. The regional authority on this species, Dr. John Litvaitis, advised me that the New England cottontail almost certainly won't be found any longer in northern Vermont. The bobcat is still a game animal in Vermont, and trapping is allowed during a prescribed season. Nevertheless, this species attracts more attention than other mammalian predators. Bobcats have been detected on several occasions on the South Village site, but not consistently enough to suggest that they have den sites on the property or nearby. 2 The closest known den site for bobcats is on the NE corner of Shelburne Pond. The average size of a home range for bobcats, would support the conclusion that the Shelburne Pond animals likely spend most of their time in the relatively undeveloped parts of Shelburne and South Burlington north and east of the pond, rather than crossing Dorset Street and intermingling with denser patterns of development. An overlay of property boundaries and roads emphasizes the contrasting housing densities on opposite sides of Dorset Street, and a closer look at the South Village site from an aerial photograph demonstrates the existing development that borders the property to the south and east. Wildlife Corridors Others have suggested that wildlife corridors exist on and near the site of South Village. In fact, consultants who prepared a 1990 plan for the Southeast Quadrant identified portions of the South Village site as corridors for wildlife. A wildlife corridor should be defined as linear habitat that provides a link between other areas of preferred habitat. My analysis of this region indicates that there are no distinctive sources of wildlife habitat either north of south of South Village, thus no justification for alleged corridors. This is not to say, however, that some of the properties adjoining South Village do not contribute to the diversity of wildlife in this area. A closer look at the site illustrates the number of developed lots and busy roads that separate the South Village area from the relatively undeveloped areas east of Dorset Street. I maintain that the large block of forest and the "Great Swamp" on the northeast portion of the South Village site, and the wetland areas on the southeast part of the property represent the most significant opportunities for animal movement in this region, and that these are the most important habitat connections to maintain. In summary, then, I make the following points about the proposed South Village development and wildlife habitat: (1) 75% of the acreage will remain open space; (2) emergent wetlands will be protected and restored; (3) residual grasslands will be restored to native species; (4) abundant edge habitats will encourage a diversity of wildlife; (5) young forests will be diversified with native species; (6) the Great Swamp will be protected; and (7) habitat connectivity to the large block of adjacent forest will be maintained. I ) Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 1 Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 •Mammal track surveys •.Jan -.Jute 2002 •13 visits, I I on fresh now -Bird surveys •.Ian -.June 21H12 •4 visits =- -Additional site vislls. April 2003, .Lune 2003, the NHU, April 2004 I conducted an assessment of wildlife habitat on the South Village site from January through July 2002 and on several occasions since that time. The South Village site is distinguished by a diversity of habitat types: five different forest communities, emergent wetlands, pastures that have reverted to brush, grasslands, and a large forested wetland. The quality of most of these sites has been diminished by years of agricultural activities and the spread of numerous exotic invasive species. A field assistant (Tina Scharf, M.S. Wildlife Biology) and I made 18 visits to the site in 2002 to survey mammals and birds. I returned to the site several more times in 2003 and 2004. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 2 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 When searching for tracks of animals in snow, we walked transect lines as a means of assuring that we surveyed the entire site. Occasionally, we left transects to follow tracks of a specific animal. Coyotes were quite common on the property, detected on 11 of 13 visits. We noted as many as 3 individuals on a single visit. Red foxes were just as abundant as coyotes, detected on 12 of 13 visits. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 3 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 White-tailed deer were common in the spring, seen on 7 of 13 visits. We did not see deer tracks regularly during winter months. Bobcats were detected on only 1 of 13 visits, but there were 2 individual animals. We saw moose tracks on one visit, but bark scaring on some small trees indicated earlier visits by moose. Eight other species of small and mid -sized mammals were found on the South Village site. Some others certainly occur in these habitats, but were not detected on our surveys: raccoons, woodchucks, red -backed voles, other species of shrews, and bats. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 4 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide 12 arr.t se ter r r.w �--u *rer aee unra n.wt, Amrrkm team. MN p.w . wUa rwtn. cwrta a.n, ►��.0�<.sea4m.ner. akrumsr.mwo-a A w�6yewra, aarmrmrurtrt,rA.-m n.a u�aaaimf��„�. row. bbw p,, bYA-IVW AIR , nftN tlhrime. �WruMrknC4knw.tteyn, werT Am RmO,.\�n.r �,.n robe brR.krram.,e.kkmn erkk. .ra rowrre c G.�. brr—T 7e[1rs i1M 4vmw, urtyartvw, mrrsk Barrow, nrwre•br.aea rwkk4 e..rtw wr.ao.rR. tarrt. ee emart Yerww.Rkr, rmFm n WwRrmr. Drawn Rramer, roMrm r.rMaal ANdQ rprts, Par[tty tY�1ra. ada wuntri.wC Rmvks weofrrct � 1R Twenty-four species of birds were found in the forest or forest edge Seven species of birds were found in the grasslands, and 8 species were detected that prefer shrubby habitat. Nine more species of birds were found in the wetland habitat types. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 5 Slide 13 Slide 14 Slide 15 4mP=1 u: no et.rr.a unpt eu .peAn .ry.'W nn. artinJet, cAfn� viMr One of the wetland species was the Northern Harrier, a Species of Special Concern in Vermont. This hawk species nests on the ground in or near wetlands and hunts for prey —usually mice —in wetlands and nearby grasslands. Harriers apparently have nested on the South Village site for the past several years since farming practices ceased. Harriers are sensitive to disturbance, thus this species might not persist as a nesting bird with the planned development. We did not search for amphibians, but at least a dozen species should be found in the mix of forest, swamp, and wetland. Four species have been mentioned by other consultants as ones that might be impacted by development. I'll address each of these below. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 6 Slide 16 Slide 17 Slide 18 T III New England Ceumtall rle. JNa IJrral" ReOMW .dfti7 w M t.0 W. r Mew PiO.it •As7w r..., 1 bMt n dj b.e-p r�rr.�.�.re,rv��rrvrq. v �...�.-,N-E.,..d.r kar rV--. a r.7 yrra d� awy •.dd k rid near Voa r e c wcda The American woodcock is a popular game species that conducts courtship displays in the spring, and nests on the ground, usually near forest edges. This species prefers a mix of open fields and shrubs for its evening courtship displays. I found woodcock displaying during 2003 and 2004. Its preferred habitat will be altered by planned development. The upland sandpiper is a Threatened species in Vermont. This species was seen on this property years ago when the fields were still pastured and cut for hay. The habitat is no longer suitable for Upland Sandpipers, however. If anything, the planned restoration of grasslands in South Village will improve chances of this species being found here. A biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department mentioned that the South Village site would be good habitat for the Endangered New England Cottontail. However, this species may be extinct in Vermont. Other consultants trapped cottontails on this site in 2004 and had samples analyzed genetically. The results confirmed that the animals were Eastern Cottontails. The regional authority on this species, Dr. John Litvaitis, advised me that the New England cottontail almost certainly won't be found any longer in northern Vermont. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 7 Slide 19 Slide 20 Slide 21 The bobcat is still a game animal in Vermont, and trapping is allowed during a prescribed season. Nevertheless, this species attracts more attention than other mammalian predators. Bobcats have been detected on several occasions on the South Village site, but not consistently enough to suggest that they have den sites on the property or nearby. The closest known den site for bobcats is on the NE corner of Shelburne Pond. I have shown on this aerial photograph the average size of a home range for bobcats, suggesting that the Shelburne Pond animals likely spend most of their time in the relatively undeveloped parts of Shelburne and South Burlington north and east of the pond, rather than crossing Dorset Street and intermingling with denser patterns of development. An overlay of property boundaries and roads emphasizes the contrasting housing densities on opposite sides of Dorset Street. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 8 Slide 22 Slide 23 Slide 24 A closer look at South Village from an aerial photograph demonstrates the existing development that borders the site to the south and east. Others have suggested that wildlife corridors exist on and near the site of South Village. Wildlife corridors should be defined as linear habitat that provides a link between other areas of preferred habitat. My analysis of this region indicates that there are no distinctive sources of wildlife habitat either north of south of South Village, thus no justification for alleged corridors. This is not to say, however, that some of the properties adjoining South Village do not contribute to the diversity of wildlife in this area. A closer look at the site illustrates the number of developed lots and busy roads that separate the South Village area from the relatively undeveloped areas east of Dorset Street. Testimony to South Burlington Development Review Board by David E. Capen 16 November 2004. Page 9 Slide 25 Slide 26 I maintain that the large block of forest and the "Great Swamp" on the northeast portion of the South Village site, and the wetland areas on the southeast part of the property represent the most significant opportunities for animal movement in this region, and that these are the most important habitat connections to maintain. In summary, then, I make the following points about the proposed South Village development and wildlife habitat: (1) 75% of the acreage will remain open space; (2) emergent wetlands will be protected and restored; (3) residual grasslands will be restored to native species; (4) abundant edge habitats will encourage a diversity of wildlife; (5) young forests will be diversified with native species; (6) the Great Swamp will be protected; and (7) habitat connectivity to the large block of adjacent forest will be maintained. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: November 12, 2004 \sub\south_village\preliminary_phasel.doc Plans received: July 16, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-04-55 Agenda #3 Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 Owner Applicant Paul Calkins South Village Communities, LLC P.O. Box 82 70 South Winooski Avenue L ndonville, VT 05851 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F 928 Falls Road Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District Shelburne, VT 05482 39.8 acres Location MaUlf ;; �-, ✓ . +"^ Apr"°.-y �j i.►-tom^ r r ....j'y � 3 T fjj Y Subject Property _ r a . ...a- Ing "I w � K• y,.p � eye r � ,i / IF .* CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary plat approval of a planned unit development consisting of 156 residential units and a 100- student educational facility, 1840 Spear Street. This project is Phase 1 of a Master Plan consisting of 334 residential units, a 100-student educational facility, and a 35-acre community supported farm. The Development Review Board held its most recent public hearing on the subject application on September 28, 2004, but continued the hearing until November 16, 2004. The applicant has not submitted any additional materials or made any changes to Phase 1 of the subject Master Plan since the last meeting. COMMENTS Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 16, 2004 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements 1. The applicant shall submit detailed dimensional information (minimum lot size; minimum front, rear, and side setbacks; building coverage; and overall coverage) for the proposed project, prior to preliminary plat approval. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval. 2. The South Burtington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed. The sewer utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004 (attached). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc 3. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington City Engineer, as outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The grading and drainage plans are depicted on sheets C5.0 through C5.5 of the plans. The erosion control plans are depicted on sheets C7.0 through C7.10 of the plans. The grading and erosion control plans were reviewed by the City Engineer. 4. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access to this project is proposed via a 48' wide pubic roadway directly across from Allen Road and a 24' wide roadway approximately 1,260' south of Allen Road. Both of these public roads access onto Spear Street and have a 60' wide right-of-way. They feed into a public roadway network within the project boundaries. At this time, the applicant is proposing to close the street network with two (2) cul-de-sacs: one (1) to the north of the project and one (1) to the south of the project. These cul-de-sacs will only be temporary, as the Master Plan, of which this project is Phase 1, depicts this public roadway network extending to the north and to the east. Circulation on this property appears to be adequate. There applicant is currently proposing two (2) points of ingress and egress, and the master plan proposed two (2) additional points of ingress and egress for the overall project. In addition, the master plan depicts a right-of-way to the property to the north, which could facilitate and additional point of ingress and egress in the future. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TN Engineering, dated April 8, 2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17, 2004. Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review. The specific traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the proposed project will be provided as they become available. 5. The applicant shall pay all applicable traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a zoning permit for each unit. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. This phase of the master plan overlaps some Class III wetlands and is adjacent to the major Class II wetland on the property. There is no development proposed in the Class II wetlands or its respective 50' buffer. However, there is encroachment into the Class III wetland and/or their respective 50' wide buffers. The Natural Resource Committee reviewed the proposed project on CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminaryphasel.doc July 22, 2004 and recommended approval of the preliminary plat plans with the following conditions: 1. DRB should require management plan for open spaces and quite plats with final plat application; 2. no application of pesticides/herbicides in wetlands or their buffers; 3. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between lots #55-66 and the Class II wetland buffers; 4. add natural fencing (hedge or wood) between parking areas along "D Street" and the Class II wetland buffers. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. In order to analyze this project's visual compatibility with the area, the entire master plan, of which this project is phase 1, must be considered. The master plan is visually compatible with the planned development patterns of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and roads are clustered and concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating significant open space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The more than 132 acres of open space preserved through this master plan will maintain the open character of the Southeast Quadrant and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. This project has five (5) lots that intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. As long as these lots comply with these height restrictions, the project will offer scenic view protection. 6. The plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for the five (5) lots that intersect the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. In order to analyze this project's open space areas, the entire Master Plan, of which this project is Phase 1, must be considered. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors with the properties to the south and north of the subject property. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004 (attached). 7. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the South Burlington Fire Chief, as outlined in his memorandum dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. All of the proposed infrastructure and services proposed for this project are consistent with the infrastructure and services proposed in the Master Plan, of which this project is Phase 1. These services and infrastructure have been designed to facilitate extension to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The applicant submitted proposed street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the project (attached). Staff does not feel that the proposed street lights are appropriate for this property, as we are trying to coordinate the street light fixtures in all of the new streets in the Southeast Quadrant. Staff suggests that the street lights used in the Vermont National Country Club development be used for this project. 8. The applicant shall submit street lighting details (cut -sheets) for the street light fixtures used in the Vermont National Country Club development, with the final plat application. The proposed recreation path is depicted for the entire master -planned development, of which this project is Phase 1. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the recreation path and provided comments in a memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004 (attached). 9. The plans shall be revised to depict the proposed recreation path on all applicable sheets of the plans for this project, prior to submittal of the final plat application. 10. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee, as outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application. The water utility line plans are depicted on sheets C6.0 through C6.3 of the plans. The South Burlington Water Department shall review the water plans prior to preliminary approval. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004. 11. All of the proposed roadways and sidewalks shall be compatible with the approved Master Plan. 12. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc utility lines shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels the proposed project is consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Staff also feels the site provides for adequate planting and safe pedestrian movement. According to Table 13-1 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the proposed residential units will require 340 parking spaces (94 for the single-family lots and 246 for the two- family and multi -family dwellings). In addition, the school will require a specific number of parking spaces. Table 13-1 of the Land development requires information on the type of school, the number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age. The applicant shall submit information on the total number of parking spaces provided in the project, so that the Development Review Board can analyze the parking requirement in relation to the number of parking spaces provided. 13. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the type of school, the number of classrooms, and the number of students of legal driving age for the proposed school. 14. The applicant shall submit, with the final plat application, information on the total number of parking spaces provided in the project. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle racks shall depicted on the plans. The plans do not depict bicycle racks. 15. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall be revised to depict at least one (1) bicycle rack, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed parking plan for the residential units is in compliance with this requirement. The parking lot proposed to serve to the school is not in compliance with his requirement. However, the fact that the school essentially has frontage on three (public roads) and has a working farm behind it makes it difficult to comply with this requirement. Thus, staff feels the proposed location of the parking lot is adequate. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district; the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The maximum height for buildings with a pitched roof is 40' from average pre -construction grade. The maximum height for buildings with a flat roof is 35' from average pre -construction grade. The application has stated that the proposed buildings will be in compliance with this requirement. However, more detailed information on building heights shall be submitted with the final plat application. In addition, five (5) of the propose lots fall within the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. These lots shall comply with the building height restrictions outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Staff has already stated that the plans shall be revised to indicate that maximum building heights for these five (5) lots. 16. The applicant shall submit detailed information on the proposed building heights of the school, the two-family dwelling units, and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application. 17. The applicant shall submit building elevation plans for the school, the two-family dwelling units, and the multi -family dwelling units with the final plat application. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Staff feels this criterion is being met. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff feels this criterion is being met Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. It is not necessary for the Development Review Board to require any addition easements for this project (Phase 1 of the Master Plan). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINUTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminaryphase1 doc Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The plans do not depict any dumpsters on the subject property. The single-family lots will not use any dumpsters, but the two-family and multi -family dwelling units, and the school may. If dumpsters are proposed, they should be clearly depicted on the plans and adequately screened. 18. If dumpsters are proposed on the subject property, they shall be clearly depicted on the plans and adequately screened, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Landscaping and Screening Requirements Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. The applicant must submit information on the estimated buildings costs of the proposed project and a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed landscaping. The applicant's landscape plans for the proposed project are included on sheets L-2 and L-3 of the plans. Sheet L-3 shows typical landscaping details for the two-family dwelling units and one type of single-family dwelling unit. The landscape plans need to be revised to include details for the all of the proposed types of dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types and multi -family dwelling unit types, and the proposed school. In addition, if the applicant is going to propose typical landscape plans for each dwelling unit type, all of the dwelling units must incorporate the landscaping that their specific type is approved for. If the landscaping throughout the project is going to vary, then an overall landscaping plan for the entire project must be submitted. The street tree plan that the applicant submitted must be prepared by a landscape architect or other landscape professional, in accordance with Section 13.06(F) of the Land Development Regulations. In addition, the applicant must submit a landscape budget indicating the value of the landscaping in the proposed street tree plan. The City Arborist reviewed the proposed street tree plan and provided comments in a letter dated August 11, 2004 (attached). 19. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any dumpsters and utility cabinets on the site shall be effectively screened to the approval of the Development Review Board. 20. The applicant shall submit information on the estimated buildings costs of the proposed project with the final plat application. 21. Pursuant to Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit a landscape budget indicating the value of the proposed site landscaping and street tree landscaping, with the final plat application. The site landscaping budget shall be separated from the street tree landscaping budget. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc 22. The landscape plans shall be revised to include details for the all of the proposed types of dwelling units, including all of the proposed single-family dwelling unit types and multi -family dwelling unit types, and the proposed school, prior to submittal of the final plat application. 23. The site landscaping plans and the street tree landscaping plans shall be revised to indicate the landscaping professional who prepared them, prior to submittal of the final plat application. 24. The landscaping plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Arborist, as outlined in his letter dated August 11, 2004, prior to submittal of the final plat application. Restricted Areas This project has buildings and building lots proposed in designated "restricted areas", as depicted on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. The project has development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to facilitate a planned roadway. The applicant has proposed a roadway network through the property that will connect Midland Avenue to Spear Street. Thus, the "restricted area", designed to facilitate the planned roadway, as labeled on the "Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map", is no longer necessary. The project also has building lots proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect scenic views. A portion of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus, development in the "restricted area" that overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In addition, the application is proposing building lots in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that is designated for a scenic view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area" allows the applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property, away from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the central and easterly portions of the property. Street Names 25. The applicant shall submit street names for the proposed project, as approved by the South Burlington Planning Commission, with the final plat application. E911 Addresses 26. The applicant shall submit E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the E911 addressing standards, with the final plat application. Other 27. The applicant shall pay all applicable impact fees prior to issuance of the zoning permit for each unit. 28. Pursuant to Section 15.08 (D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit homeowner's association legal documents with the final plat application. The documents that include language that: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc a. ensures that the garages will not be converted to living space; b. prohibits the storage and parking of recreational vehicles within the development, c. prohibits clearing of land, disturbance of land, or application of pesticides within wetlands or wetland buffers, except for the Class Ill wetland on Lot 16 and the Class 111 wetland to the west of Lot 20; d. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the sewage pumping station, - AND e. ensures that the association shall assume all maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater drainage facilities until such time as a future City stormwater utility accepts the stormwater infrastructure. 29. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, prior to issuance of the first zoning permit or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall submit all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public roads, utility, sewer, drainage, water, and recreation paths, etc.) to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 30. Prior to the start of construction of the improvements described in condition #29 above, the applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements. 31. Pursuant to Section 15.14(E)(2) of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations, within 14 days of the completion of required improvements (e.g. roads, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the City Engineer, `as -built' construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer. Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Preliminary Plat application #SD-04-55. Respectfully submitted, J Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: November 12, 2004 \drb\sub\south village\masterplan.doc Plans received: November 9, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #SD-04-01 Agenda #2 Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 Owner Applicant Paul Calkins South Village Communities, LLC P.O. Box 82 70 South Winooski Avenue Lyndonville, VT 05851 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F 928 Falls Road Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District Shelbume, VT 05482 224.18 acres Location Ma wi r. t' ' {) a y Ad'w Subject Property m r Project Description South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking Master Plan approval pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 334 residential unit traditional neighborhood design to include single-family, two-family, and multi -family dwelling units, 2) a 100-student educational facility, and 3) a 35-acre community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street. Master Plan approval for this property is required by Section 15.07(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as a prerequisite to the development of ten (10) or more residential units in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District (SEQ). The Development Review Board held its most recent public hearing on the subject application on September 28, 2004, but continued the hearing until November 16, 2004. a. Application i. This application consists of a Master Plan for a planned unit development consisting of 334 residential units; a 100-student educational facility, and a 35-acre community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street. ii. The application is based upon a plan entitled "South Village — Master Plan — Spear Street — South Burlington, Vermont". The owner of record of the property is Paul Calkins. iv. The application was deemed complete pursuant to 15.07(3) of the Land Development Regulations. b. Master Plan Application The following information was relied upon in making this decision pursuant to Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations: a. An accurate Master Plan has been submitted. b. The title block is "South Village — South Burlington, Vermont — Spear Street and Allen Road." c. The plans were prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.; Looney Ricks Kiss; TND Engineering; LandWorks; and Applied Ecological Services, Inc., dated June, July, August, and October 2004. d. A list of abutters was provided with the application and the names of abutters are included on sheet C2.1 of the plans. e. The Master Plan application and the plans referenced in (b) above include the following information: i. The combined area of the property subject to the Master Plan is 224.18 acres. 6. The plan indicates that 58.6 acres (Phase 1: 25 acres; Phase 2: 18.2 acres; and Phase 3: 15.4 acres) are proposed for development and 165.58 acres are proposed for open space. 061 Public amenities and facilities indicated on the plans include public streets, a public water system, a public sewer system; a public stormwater drainage system, and a public recreation path. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property is _% (30% permitted). The maximum building coverage proposed for the entire property is _% (15% permitted). v. The total number of residential dwelling units proposed by the applicant for the entire property is 334. This total includes the 267 units yielded through the base density in the Southeast Quadrant (1.2 units/acre), plus the 67 units yielded through the 25% density bonus for providing mixed -rate housing, pursuant to Section 13.14 of the Land Development Regulations. vi. The traffic study prepared by TND Engineering estimates a maximum PM peak hour VTE count of 345. v;i. T i �e sewer and water master plan is depicted on sheet C5.0 of the plans and has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Superintendent of South Burlington Water Department. viii. The roadway and sidewalk details, including the proposed hierarchy system, are outlined on sheets T4.1 though T4.6 of the plans. The plans have been reviewed and by the Director of Public Works. ix. The existing conditions plans on sheet C2.1 of the plans depict 2' contour intervals. Other sheets depict 5' contour intervals, which are in compliance with this requirement. x. The boundary survey for the property is depicted on sheet S1.0 of the plans. xi. The proposed north and south street intersections have been staked in the field and have been designed to intersect existing driveways and/or undeveloped lots along the westerly side of Spear Street. xii. The waivers that the applicant is requesting are as follows: A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings - This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings - This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings — This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to 260'. The project will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms to the Allen Road/Spear Street intersection, but seeks to reduce the travel speeds through the introduction of narrower streets and tighter center line radii consistent with the goals of creating livable neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut -through traffic in the project area. The reduction provides centerline radius consistent with a design speed of 25 mph. The goal of reducing commuter or cut -through traffic is supported by the presence of Barstow Road just to the south of the project area. E. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200' - The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a design speed of 25 mph within the neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the creation of livable neighborhoods. F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets from 150' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from 100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. H. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets from 200' to 150' - With lower design speeds and a street grid pattem that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300' to 150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to 150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. 4 K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. L. Minimum horizontal 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) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. C. Proposed Development Areas in the Master Plan Application The Master Plan application includes three (3) proposed development areas, as follows: Phase 1: Village Center 156 units and a 100-student school, southwesterly _ portion of property. Phase 2: Fields Edge 99 units, northwesterly portion of property. Phase 3: The Ridge 84 units, southeasterly portion of the property. The maximum number of units allowed on this property is 334. The plans submitted depict a total of 339 units, so at least five (5) of the units shall be deleted from the plans. Pursuant to Section 15.18 (A) of the South Burlington Land Development Requlations Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions: 1. §15.18(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City does not currently have adequate water supply capacity to serve the proposed project, which is estimated to demand 115,000 gallons per day. However, the additional water supply storage that the City is in the process of constructing will be sufficient to supply the demand of the proposed project. The Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility currently has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project, which is estimated to generate 72,000 gallons per day. The City Wastewater Ordinance has specific provisions to allow large-scale project to obtain wastewater allocation permits during the approvals of specific phases of a Master Plan. Thus, the applicant will obtain water allocation and wastewater allocation approval at each of the three (3) proposed phases of this project. In addition, the applicant will obtain State permits in conjunction with the approval of the three (3) phases of this project. 2. §15.18(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Individual preliminary and final plat applications will be evaluated for conformance with this criterion and the provisions of Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations, Construction and Erosion Control. 3. §15.18(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TND Engineering, dated April 8, 2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17, 2004. Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review. A memorandum outlining the findings of Fuss and O'Neil will be available to the Development Review Board at the meeting on November 16, 2004. The specific traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the proposed project will be conditioned and implemented at each of the three (3) phases of this Master Plan. The Director of Public Works has been extensively involved in the review of this Master Plan because of the significance of the public roadway waivers the applicant is requesting. His comments are outlined in two (2) memorandums dated November 21, 2002 and September 7, 2004. 4. §15.18(A)(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous Class II I wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes, and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant, Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations. 0 In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp", has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact. However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above, located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area, by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 84 units in and adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the southerly portion of this wooded area. The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife impacts. The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (NRC) reviewed the proposed Master Plan on July 8, 2004 and July 22, 2004. The NRC was provided with copies of the applicant's wetland consultant's memorandum referenced above and the applicant's wildlife study referenced above. In addition, the NRC visited the site with the applicant, the applicant's wetland consultant, the applicant's wildlife biologist, the applicant's civil engineer, and other applicable parties. The NRC's recommended approval of the proposed Master Plan with the following conditions- 1 . eliminate the southeasterly pod (Phase 3: The Ridge) for wildlife habitat protection considerations; 2. phase in east -west roadway based on City need and/or project need; 3. if the east -west road is constructed, the NRC recommends: a. wildlife -friendly design features b. wetland protection features 4. locate bike paths and pedestrian paths in a manner that minimizes wetland impacts; 5. if wetland experts disagree on the delineation at the DRB meeting, the NRC recommends that the DRB invoke technical review; 6. no pesticide application; 7. no mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers; 8. disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities; 9. no planting non-native species in wetlands or their buffers; 10. require a management plan for the agricultural area. At the meeting on September 28, 2004, the Development Review Board invoked technical review of the original wetland delineations performed by Art Gilman. The City hired Pioneer Environmental to conduct the technical review. The determinations of Pioneer Environmental are outlined in a memorandum from Shelley Gustafson, dated November 12, 2004. 7 The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are in conflict with regard to Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan. The original plans had 111 units proposed in this area and staff suggested that the 65 units and lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This would preserve a vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open space and wildlife corridor in this area. The applicant moved all but three (3) of the lots out of the subject woodland area. Three (3) of the apartment buildings were displaced into the southern portion of the Phase 3 development pod, so the pod was able to retain a total of 84 units. Staff feels that this revision to the original plans is an adequate compromise between preserving the wildlife habitat in the subject wooded area and providing housing. Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic management, and community planning perspective. 5. §15.18(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. The proposed Master Plan is visually compatible with the planned development patterns of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and roads are clustered and concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating significant open space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The more than 165 acres of open space preserved through this Master Plan will maintain the open character of the area and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. By eliminating the proposed units in the upper portion of Phase 3, the applicant has increased the protection of wildlife habitat functions and natural resource on the property. The proposed Master Plan complies with the building height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. A total of 35 acres of the land within this scenic overlay district will be devoted to a community -supported farm. 6. §15.18(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve over 165 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors with the properties to the south and north of the subject property. 7. §15.18(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the master plan to assess the proposed roadway layout. His comments are included in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004. The Fire Chief will review the location of hydrants and other details related to fire protection within each of the three (3) phases during the preliminary and final plat review of each phase. 8. §15.18(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The general layout of the roads, recreation paths, and utilities is adequate to facilitate the extension of such services to adjacent properties. 9. §15.18(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The overall road layout and hierarchy system are adequate and have been approved by the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief. The overall recreation path layout was reviewed by the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee and comments were provided in memorandums from Tom Hubbard, the Director of the South Burlington Recreation Department, dated September 2, 2004 and November 2, 2004. The landscaping and utility details will be reviewed during the subsequent preliminary and final plat stages of the individual phases. 10. §15.18(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). 9 The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the following objectives for the Southeast Quadrant, as outline in Chapter 8(G) of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: a. Preserve and enhance the open character, natural resources, and scenic views of the Southeast Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development. b. Maintain a rate, location, intensity, and timing of future development in the Southeast Quadrant that is in accord with the physical characteristics of the land and the availability of municipal services and facilities, and which is consistent with the City's population growth objectives and land use recommendations. c. Promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of affordable housing, while preserving the special character of the Southeast Quadrant. Pursuant to Section 15.18 (B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions: 1. §15.18(B)(1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development. As discussed above, in response to the criteria outlined in Sections15.18 (A)(4) and 15.18(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed Master Plan includes extensive open space and natural resource protection. The plan incorporates over 165 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The surface area and location of this open space will be integral to protecting important natural resources, including wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife. The Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District overlaps a large portion of the subject property. Sheet C-2.4 of the Master Plan depicts this scenic overlay district and indicates the maximum building height allowed within this scenic overlay district, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. The proposed buildings conform to the height restrictions for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. At the preliminary and final plat review stages of each of the three (3) phases, the maximum building height of each lot shall be indicated on the plans. 2. §15.18(B)(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned development at the overall base densities provided in these Regulations. The proposed buildings, building lots, streets, and other structures have been designed to create the open space areas discussed above, in response to Section 15.18(B)(1) of the Land Development Regulations. 10 3. §15.18(B)(3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous Class III wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes, and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant, Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations. At the meeting on September 28, 2004, the Development Review Board invoked technical review of the original wetland delineations performed by Art Gilman. The City hired Pioneer Environmental to conduct the technical review. A document with the findings of Pioneer Environmental will be provided at the meeting on November 16, 2004. In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp", has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact. However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above, located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area, by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 84 units in and adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the southerly portion of this wooded area. The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife impacts. The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are all in conflict with regard to Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan. The original plans had 111 units proposed in this area and staff suggested that the 65 units and lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This would preserve a vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open space and wildlife corridor in this area. The applicant moved all but three (3) of the lots out of the subject woodland area. Three (3) of the apartment buildings were displaced into the southern portion of the Phase 3 development pod, so the pod was able to retain a total of 84 units. Staff feels that this revision to the original plans is an adequate compromise between preserving the wildlife habitat in the subject wooded area and providing housing. Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic management, and community planning perspective. 4. §15.18(B)(4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed and located to maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces on adjacent properties. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will create over 165 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous space corridors with the properties to the south and north of the subject property. 5. §15.18(B)(5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ is encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on prime agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure. There are no existing agricultural operations on the subject property. However, the Master Plan includes a 35-acre community -supported farm, which will reinstate active agricultural operations into the area. 6. §15.18(B)(6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. The applicant submitted a draft open space management plan for the subject property. This document is entitled "South Village — South Burlington, Vermont — Community Land Management Plan", dated November 2004. This document includes a management plan for the proposed community -supported agricultural area. 7. §15.18(B)(7) In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. 12 The Proposed Master Plan is in compliance with the South Burlington Official Map, last revised February 14, 2004. Other Applicable Criteria 1. § 9.08(B) In connection with approval of a PUD, the Development Review Board may allow development activities in addition to those authorized under Section 9.06(B) to occur in restricted areas or allow residential lots or portions of residential lots to be located in restricted areas provided the Development Review Board determines that such development activities are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District. The subject property has a number of "restricted areas" on it. These "restricted areas" were established to protect land for one (1) of the following reasons: to facilitate planned roadways; to protect scenic views; or to protect wetland and other natural resources. The proposed Master Plan does have buildings and building lots within these "restricted areas". Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 all have development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to facilitate planned roadways. The applicant has proposed a roadway network through the property that connects Midland Avenue to Spear Street, in addition to providing a means of access to the property to the north. Thus, the "restricted areas", designed to facilitate planned roadways, as labeled on the "Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map", are no longer necessary. Phase 1 and Phase 2 have development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect scenic views. Most of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus, development in the "restricted area" that overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In addition, the application is proposing development in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that is designated for a scenic view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area" allows the applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property, away from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the central and easterly portions of the property. Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan has nine (9) proposed lots in a "restricted area" designated to protect natural resources. The applicant originally proposed approximately 65 units within a "restricted area" that the City has identified as a potentially important wildlife habitat corridor. Per the request of staff and the Development Review Board, the applicant removed most of these units, which significantly reduced the wildlife impacts of the proposed project. Thus, staff feels the wildlife impacts in this area have been minimized and the nine (9) lots proposed within the restricted area are acceptable. Staff notes, however, that significant landscaping will be required in this area to further reduce the impacts of the proposed project. 13 DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Development Review Board approves Master Plan application #MP-04-01 of South Villages Communities, LLC for 334 residential units, a 100-student school, and a 35-acre community -supported farm. Pursuant to §15.07(D)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 is hereby approved with conditions. A. Decision with Respect to Master Plan Umbrella Criteria: The Development Review Board approves the following Master Plan "umbrella criteria" pursuant to §15.07(D)(3) of the Land Development Regulations: a. Overall density and number of residential dwelling units: A maximum number of 334 residential dwelling units are approved for a total density of 1.5 units/acre. The base density in the Southeast Quadrant of 1.2 units/acre yields a total of 223 units. The 25% density bonus for providing mixed -rate housing, as determined by Section 13.14 of the Land development Regulations, accounts for the additional 67 units. b. Building and impervious coverage: A total building coverage of % and a total impervious coverage of % are approved for the master plan. These are overall limits for the entire South Village property subject to this approval. Within the individual development phases, as described and approved in this decision, these overall limits may be exceeded provided the applicable Southeast Quadrant zoning district limitations of fifteen percent (15%) for buildings and thirty percent (30%) overall are met. c. Location, layout, capacity and number of collector roadways: The collector roadway system is approved as shown on the Master Plan. d. Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved Mater Plan application: All areas not approved as development areas in this Master Plan are to be utilized exclusively for open space use. e. Maximum number of vehicle trip ends — A maximum of 345 PM peak hour trip ends from all approved residential and non-residential uses is approved for the South Village property. B. Decision with Respect to Individual Development Areas —Proposed as Part of this Master Plan Application: (1) Phase 1: Village Center: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is approved as a development area. (2) Phase 2: Fields Edge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is approved as a development area. (3) Phase 3: The Ridge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is approved as a development area. 14 CONDITIONS The Development Review Board finds and concludes that the following conditions are necessary for the Master Plan application to meet the City's requirements and standards for approval: 1. Pursuant to Sections 15.07(D)(2) and 15.07(D)(4) of the Land Development Regulation, the Development Review Board requires each of the three (3) phases included in this Master Plan to obtain separate preliminary plat approval and final plat approval in accordance with Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations. 2. Any application for amendment of the Master Plan or preliminary plat plan that deviates from the Master Plan in any one or more of the following respects shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended Master Plan: a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the Master Plan; b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the Master Plan; c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the Master Plan; d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved Master Plan application; e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the Master Plan. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(5) of the Land Development Regulations the following minor land development activities will not require Development Review Board approval and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a zoning permit: a) The addition of decks to dwelling units; b) The addition of porches to dwelling units; c) The addition of patios (these do not need a zoning permit either); d) The enclosure of decks; e) The addition of accessory structures, pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Land Development Regulations; f) Other minor land development activities at the discretion of the Administrative Officer. 4. Pursuant to Section15.18 (B)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit a plan for the management and maintenance of the dedicated open spaces created through this Master Plan. The management and maintenance plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning, prior to recording of the Master Plan. 5. The Master Plan shall be revised to show the following changes. Four (4) copies of the approved revised plat plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording: 15 a) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee, as outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004. b) The plans shall be revised to account for the applicable wetland delineation boundary changes identified in the memorandum from Shelley Gustafson, dated November 12, 2004. 6. The roadways, sidewalks, and recreation paths comprising this Master Plan can be constructed in conjunction with each of the three (3) phases. The roadway connection to Midland Drive shall, at the latest, be constructed in conjunction with Phase 3 of the Master Plan. 7. The Development Review Board approves the following waivers from the Land Development Regulations. - A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings. B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings. C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings. D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to 260'. E. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200'. F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets from 150' to 50'. G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from 1001. H. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets from 200' to 150'. I. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300' to 150'. J. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to 150'. K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from 500 to 275'. L. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Local Streets from 300 to 275'. 8. Any future requests for waivers will be reviewed in conjunction with the site -specific preliminary or final plat reviews for individual development areas. 9. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 10. The Master Plan (sheets S1.0 and S1.1) shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair R or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording of the Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plats in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the Director of Planning & Zoning. Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Master Plan application #SD-04-01. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, stociate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 17 Brian Robertson From: Daniel Wetzel [danwetz c@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:32 AM To: brobertson@sburl.com Cc: 'Peter Jones'; Chris Benedict; brobertson c@sburl.com; cashaw c@post.harvard.edu; eb_ogrady@yahoo.com; laniravin c@speedymail.org; Daniel Wetzel; Lani.Ravin c@uvm.edu; janderson c@vtlaw1.com; mhall@PFClaw.com; Amanda S.E. Lafferty; rbelair@sburl.com Subject: Details of South Village to Dorset Farms Connector Road needs NRC review Importance: High Howdy Brian - When you have a second could you please email me the minutes of the July 8 & 22, 2004 Natural Resource Committee (NRC) meeting as well as a copy of the 'recommendation' letter that the NRC sent to the Development Review Board (DRB). As I recall from those meetings, it was the NBC's understanding that the South Village project was to be built in 3 phases and that the NRC would have the opportunity to review the exact details (i.e wet land impacts/ wildlife crossing structures) of the connector road to Dorset Farms during the phase 3 plan application. However. the DRB is now asking for the connector road to be included in phase 1, Thus, I believe the NRC will need to review the updated connector road details for the phase 1 application, and give their recommendations on it specifically. The developer has provided the details of the connector road in the revised application. For example on page W3.0 the application now indicates that - over 21,852 sq ft of fill will need to be added to the class II wetlands so that the connector road and rec path can be built. - Over 14,000 sq ft of this is to accommodate the new rec path committees request. - There are no details of the mitigation that would be used to replace the filled wetlands. - much of the fill is proposed for land outside of the cities ROW and on Dorset Farms Homeowner Association property. This has not been discussed with Dorset Farms Homeowners Association. This fill is not part of the original MLB city and state permit for Dorset Farms. - The application also describes the type of culvert to be constructed (pre cast concrete three side box). The NRC would no doubt like to review the culvert as well, since they expressed interest in maintaining suitable 'crossings' for wetland associated wildlife (amphibians, reptiles, small mammals). I have copied all NRC members on this email except for William Schuele for whom I don't have an address. Please forward a copy to Bill. Please also forward my request for the NRC to review the new details of the connector road to be considered by the DRB at tonight's meeting. Thanks Later, Dan e/cc: SBLT, DFHA List Daniel Wetzel 183 Catkin Rd Sbuth Burlington, VT 05403 660-3117 (h) / 769-2251(w) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 12, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Re: South Village Public Hearing 11/16/04 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, November 16, 2004 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 to - - Daniel Wetzel 183 Catkin Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 802-660-3117 November 12, 2004 South Burlington Development Review Board C/o Ray Belair 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: November 16th DRB meeting / Public Hearing for: 1. Continued master plan #MP-04-01, South Village; 334 unit PUD, 1840 Spear Street. 2. Continued preliminary plat #SD-04-55, South Village; Phase 1-150 units & 100 student school, 1840 Spear Street Dear Board Members - For the November 16'h DRB meeting and Public Hearing I wish to submit a petition of over 120 residents of Dorset Farms in opposition to extending Midland Avenue across the class 2 wetlands and wildlife corridor (per Arrowood Report) to the proposed South Village Project. This petition will also be used for Act 250 hearings & appeals of which over 20 of the undersigned have agreed to seek party status in. Respectfully, Da�CAA . Wetzel PETITION tt / To: The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County Attention: Peter Kaibell South Burlington Development Review Board We, the undersigned residents of Dorset Farms, along with other interested parties, wish to protest the proposed extension of Midland Road across the wetland to support the planned South Village community. We feel that this extension, regardless of what approach may be taken, will essentially turn our community into a thoroughfare from both Shelburne Road and Spear Street, bringing additional traffic through a residential area heavily populated by families with young children. Name (Printed) vi�der r� clei Address T l�q C6Q' i;A �/'. 5o . &r ling ion to 1 COhnnm' Dn . n, iql is- D)� 135 Signature Signature WON Petition to: Name (Printed) The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board -MOWAO'S 4.14av--I-j kA jCV-4), 1-t '16 C f ffl�mb Em4 Address U '2" , L4 ah 4zv FL 0 rz 4 L- '3j- 3LA� Il "VI VI 7t) 7 110 Petition to: Name (Printed) The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board jv7 41,1 Ph�lr 1 �GLNQ�% / c Gouvitr Lb Lk C , i�VLl ' Li Address .2 - T--L C>/-7y- e- s f �5 2 S 3' iIOrAI S �• y 1303ei u , 7q (r r. 1 18 3 ca"t %' n b I-; v e '..i/ _ / /o-r t f .-57 t-I C j-, / -. 7 Sienature Petition to: Name (Printed) The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board Address AAiq 4MA'iF 71 9Ae- LP-, U4 VW N) M 1 L(r — 7 -Tkc &'v ,� fit' ED 33 31I�,-yl Sf, -rI ( ;,-e St V FAJ Petition to: Name (Printed) c- r , L Lee The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board DHIKLEcZ b-ILLOK2 Z; Address rvAcwn \/4 42- F-V)y-c, J -D e- eur c -'b -5 3 F1 0 1-12-151- S/' AUL11" Liz, �-�c ITTrre -R(v(t v /1 4 V� I loc-f241 -Y-H 1A40 L alvu nn Ih S4 S -01;� eIr Jai, oi A( I � 11 j Petition to: Name (Printed) L 1 Ly 41c; The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board C Vv%4"y u06 k �j dvo.r .�A11 CHt s�fc L CGS l es l e-kaw ja'57�- Mr-%a-yu'�s Address t i ( cA�'ri k. !tj ) r �s�kl l L U)etc. i �C C t-L� V Y J 94 C,4O kt n ,Droa �5 c k % ' � ,-� (tic CA-rkl"' Cal Signature ON IMMIUMM- Petition to: Name (Printed) The Agency Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board Address 7+ Iq i Sk +• Shmatu=re L Mimi" `J Lf Petition to: The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County South Burlington Development Review Board Name (Printed) Address 1.�A Cat- Cj - s64A Bi..6. v r os�o3 i S'oL �u r , V j n Leo: �� is ��6-� cr s�,�, i�►�� Js� (can '' 1kwA cAlk,4 DL- �R�TC PETITION To: The Agency of Natural Resources, District of Chittenden County Attention: Peter Kaibell South Burlington Development Review Board We, the undersigned residents of Dorset Farms, along with other interested parties, wish to protest the proposed extension of Midland Road across the wetland to support the planned South Village community. We feel that this extension, regardless of what approach may be taken, will essentially turn our community into a thoroughfare from both Shelburne Road and Spear Street, bringing additional traffic through a residential area heavily populated by families with young children. Name (Print d14 ) T �Xj I f4Q n Address 1 v 'r C, I 3 r/yC�L�1 c7 S OurrmVILLAGE South Burlington, Vermont The Retrovest Companies Hello South Village Neighbors: The South Burlington DRB will be reviewing our submittals at their meeting on Tues. Nov. 16 - 7:30pm at the South Burlington City Hall. Revisions to our South Village Plan have just been posted to our website: www.southvillage.com click on "APPROVAL PROCESS" We look forward to seeing you there. Brian Robertson, Assoc. Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 mac, 6*r e-I 11 .4 I � PIONEER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, LLC. 48 Green Street Suite 2, P.O. Box 354 Vergennes, Vermont 05491 Phone: 802-877-1380 Fax: 802-877-1385 email: pioneere(q7)sover.net "'--website: www.pioneere.com CONSULTING SCIENTISTS November 12, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont South Village Wetlands Review Status Report Dear Brian: Please find attached memorandum prepared by Pioneer Environmental Associates, LLC. describing our findings from our review of wetland delineations on the South Village parcel. It is our intent to provide you with an independent, third party scientifically -based assessment of the previously identified "problem areas" that have been under evaluation by Dori Barton and Art Gilman. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Shelley Gustafson Senior Wetland Scientist SEG/jmw Enclosure cc: Juli Beth Hoover Dori Barton Art Gilman F:\PROJECT\04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review\robertson.11.doc PIONEER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, LLC. 48 Green Street Suite 2, P.O. Box 354 Vergennes, Vermont 05491 Phone: 802-877-1380 Fax: 802-877-1385 email: pioneere@sover.net Website: www.pioneere.com CONSULTING SCIENTISTS MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington/South Village 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 Barton's October 4, 2004 letter. Each of the original comments is re -stated prior to a discussion based on Pioneer's evaluation. 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 South Burlington/South Village Review File Page 2 November 12, 2004 and included Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn), Viburnum trilobum (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 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. 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 South Burlington/South Village Review File Page 3 November 12, 2004 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 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. 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. South Burlington/South Village Review File Page 4 November 12, 2004 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, 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 II, 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 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. South Burlington/South Village Review File Page 5 November 12, 2004 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 strobus (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. 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 ATTACHMENT F e jlt `- w Sid Ditch ,. 5 Mixed�Wetland/, 2 a Upland4Zone 3 20403 10 t 20@*06 7 I 07 s §t 00 ry 24OS - , 81 Wetland Ext I x � Beyond -- Del ineatedlArea Sources: VT DOQ # 096212 (1998); Wetland Boundary - CEA South Village Provided by Civil Engineering Associates (2004); Wetlands, Wetlands - Pioneer T Ditch, Revised Wetlands Boundary & Saftey Line mapped using South Burlington, VT a Trimble GeoXT GPS (2004); Streams were provided by VCGI Wetland Boundary -CEA Wetlands Review by Pioneer 1.5000scale Vermont HydrographyDataset(2004) Ditch -Pioneer November 12, 2004 0 R8 fi ® Stream PIONEER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,Lu. N 500 _ 250 0 500 Feet CONSUNG SCIENTISTS Property Line LTI; 48 Green St, Ste.2 P.D. Box 354, Vergennes, VT 06491 Phone: 802-877-1380 Fax: 802-877.1385 F:PROJECT 04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review Created By: JLS email: pioneere@sover.net Project Title: South Burlington/Retrovest Transect: 2004-1 Plot: 2004-1A Review Delineator: Shelley Gustafson Date: Oct. 19, 2004 Vegetation Stratum and Species Dominance Ratio Percent NWI Status Dominants Only) Dominance Herb Viburnum trilobum (cranberry viburnum) 10.5/21 50 FACW Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn) 10.5/21 50 UPL Shrub Sapling Acer saccharum (sugar maple) 25/25 100 * raised roots prevalent Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash) 26/31 84 FACW NOTE 1: Use asterisk' to indicate plants with observed adaptations to wetland hydrology. Plants recorded with asterisks should be considered as "other hydrophytes" in the tally below. NOTE 2: Species with NA or NI status are reported, but are not calculated in the tally below. 2 1 1 OBL FACW FAC OTHER FAC- FACU UPL Hydrophytes SUBTOTAL: 3 NON-hydrophytes SUBTOTAL: _1_ 100 x Subtotal Hydrophytes = PERCENT = Subtotal Hydrophytes + Subtotal Non-hydrophytes HYDROPHYTES 75 HYDROLOGY 1. Hydrology is often the most difficult feature to observe. 2. Interpretation must consider the validity of the observation in light of the season, recent weather conditions, watershed alterations, etc. 3. Interpretation of hydrology may require repealed observations over more than one season RECORDED DATA Stream, lake, or tidal gage Identification: Located adjacent to small stream Aerial photography Identification: Other Identification: NO RECORDED DATA OBSERVATIONS Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturation (including capillary fringe): All horizons were most down to 20" Altered Hydrology (explain): ated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns within Wetland r: Raised roots; situated within floodplain of stream F 3 SOIL REDOXIMORPHIC USDA Texture; and nodules, DEPTH HORIZON MATRIX FEATURES concretions, masses, pore linings, COLOR (color, abundance, size, restrictive layers, root contrast) distribution, soil water, etc. Clay loam; moist; friable; many fine roots; common medium 0-8 inches 10YR 2/2 roots; few coarse roots Clay loam; moist; moderately 10YR 2/1 @10% friable; few fine and medium 8-19.5 inches 10YR 5/1 10YR 5/8 @ 40% roots (from 8-14 inches) HYDRIC SOIL INDICATOR(S): REFERENCE(S): Criterion VI Field Indicators for Identifying Hydric Soils In New England, Version 3, 2004 OPTIONAL SOIL DATA REFERENCE(S): Taxonomic subgroup: Soil drainage Class: Depth to active water table. NTCHS hydric soil criterion CONCLUSIONS YES NO REMARKS: Greater than 50% Hydrophytes? x Hydric Soils Criterion Met? x Wetland Hydrology Met? Is this data point within a wetland? X PROJECT TITLE: South Burlington/Retrovest Review TRANSECT: 2004-1 PLOT: 2004-1A F:\PROJECT\04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review\Dala Sheets\Data sheet A.doc Project Title: South Burlington/Retrovest Transect: 2004-1 Plot: 2004-1 B Review Delineator: Shelley Gustafson Date: October 19, 2004 Vegetation Stratum and Species Ratio Percent NWI Status Dominants Only)Dominance Dominance Herb Acer saccharum (sugar maple) seedlings 10.5/31 34 FACU- Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn) 20.5/31 66 UPL seedlings Shrub Sapling Acer saccharum (sugar maple) 30/30 100 FACU- Tree Acer saccharum (sugar maple) 68/102 67 FACU- Tilia americans (basswood) 26/102 25 FACU NOTE 1: Use asterisk' to indicate plants with observed adaptations to wetland hydrology. Plants recorded with asterisks should be considered as "other hydrophytes" in the tally below. NOTE 2. Species with NA or NI status are reported, but are not calculated in the tally below. 4 1 OBL FACW FAC OTHER FAC- FACU UPL HYDROPHYTES Hydrophytes SUBTOTAL: 0 NON-hydrophytes SUBTOTAL: _5_ 100 x Subtotal Hydrophytes = PERCENT = Subtotal Hydrophytes + Subtotal Non-hydrophytes HYDROPHYTES 0 HYDROLOGY 1. Hydrology is often the most difficult feature to observe. 2. Interpretation must consider the validity of the observation in light of the season, recent weather conditions, watershed alterations, etc. 3. interpretation of hydrology may require repeated observations over more than one season RECORDED DATA Stream, lake, or tidal gage Identification: Aerial photography Identification: Other Identification: NO RECORDED DATA OBSERVATIONS Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturation (including capillary fringe): Altered Hydrology (explain): Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns within Wetland Other: SOIL REDOXIMORPHIC USDA Texture; and nodules, DEPTH HORIZON MATRIX FEATURES concretions, masses, pore linings, COLOR (color, abundance, size, restrictive layers, root contrast) distribution, soil water, etc. Loam; dry; friable; many fine and medium roots, common coarse 0-7 inches 10YR/3/2 roots Loam; moist; friable; common 7-12 inches 10YR/3/4 fine and medium roots HYDRIC SOIL INDICATOR(S): REFERENCE(S): None OPTIONAL SOIL DATA REFERENCE(S): Taxonomic subgroup: Soil drainage Class: Depth to active water table: NTCHS hydric soil criterion: CONCLUSIONS YES NO REMARKS: Greater than 50% Hydrophytes? X Hydric Soils Criterion Met? X Wetland Hydrology Met? X Is this data point within a wetland? X PROJECT TITLE: South Burlington/Retrovest Review TRANSECT: 2004-1 PLOT: 2004-1 B FAPROJECT\04075 South Burlington Retrovest Review\Data Sheets\Data sheet B.doc r z C 1 n_.i�, ��"IJTr7IJ��1<1 '_'1`I, :� � L„f4o3l RECREATION DIRECTOR j TODD GCODWIN ASSISTAHT DIRECTOR TO: Brian Robertson FROM: Tom Hubbard RE: RPC Recommendations -South Village DATE: November 2, 2004 The RPC met last evening with David Scheuer, David Marshall, and David Raphael representing the South Village Development. The committee was updated on plans for the proposed recreation path and has made the following recommendation to be forwarded to the DRB: The southern path in this development will connect with Midland Ave. The committee recommends that when the thru street is built to connect Spear and Midland that the recreation path along the street be constructed at the same time. We further recommend that the walking paths be integrated into the city walking -path network. The westernmost walking path would be built during Phase 1. 14,E : VE-,1,410 N' R E's. .`, '0Td Al,ID :7FARK A S0CIAT1014 - NATI%1 1AL RI: CREAT101°d A1'.TD PA.RX AG ,< a i' ( CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 21, 2004 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 September 28, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 FAX To: L V' (,L < <� From: 64 J 1� Yl G Fax: Pages: Z—� including cover sheet Phone: j Date: Re: CC: ff ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: G ) I U CAJ f17 ) S�ti44'JfS South Village Preliminary Plan Submittal September 28, 2004 Request for Waivers The following waivers are requested in support of the development of a neighborhood friendly roadway system and layout of a traditional village style environment. Planned Residential Developments Section Title Description & Reason 15.12 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table 15-1 of the Land Development Regulations : A. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 30' to: 20' at wetland crossings; 28' with parking on one side and 20' at bulbouts; and 26' (with a 28' structural base under designated "collector routes) - This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming/pedestrian enhancing efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable widths are dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. B. Minimum pavement width for Local streets from 28' to: 20' at wetland crossings; 26' with parking on one side; and 24' with no striped parking This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming/pedestrian enhancing efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable widths are dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. C. Minimum radius of curves for Collector from 500' to 260'. The project will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms to the Allen Street intersection but seeks to reduce the travel speeds through the introduction of narrower street and tighter center line radii consistent with the goals of creating livable neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut through traffic through the project area. The reduction in the provides centerline radius is consistent with a design speed of 25 mph. The goal of reducing commuter or cut through traffic is supported by the presence of Barstow Road just to the south of the project area. D. Minimum radius of curves for Local streets from 300' to 90' - The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a design speed of 25 and 20 mph within the neighborhoods as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the creation of livable neighborhoods. South Village Request for Waivers Page 2 of 3 September 27, 2004 E. Minimum tangent length between curves for Collector from 150' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Streets from 100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. G. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150', and 120' for one-way pairs around greens. With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced H. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). With a reduced vehicle speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced I. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' and 125' for Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the design speeds from 30 mph to 25 and 20 mph, respectively).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. Minimum horizontal (comer) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the design speed from 45 mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. K. Minimum horizontal (comer) sight distance for Local Streets from 300 to 275' and 220' (corresponds with a reduction in the design speeds from 30 mph to 25 and 20 mph, respectively). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items J through L. South Village Request for Waivers Page 3 of 3 September 27, 2004 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 3,600 SF. - B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 42%. C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 61%. D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). F. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 50%. G. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 65%. H. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. I. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW235 Table 15-1 Street Desi n I tandards(i) Arterial Collector Private Minimum ROW width 801 60' 50' n/a Minimum 261(4)/20'( pavement width 48' 30' 28'(2) Curbing DRB required? es yes discretion no Maximum grade 6% 8% 10% Minimum grade 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Minimum radius of curves(3) 1000, 500' 300' Minimum tangent length between reverse 200, 150' 100' curves Minimum distance between center line offsets 400' 300' 200' Angle at intersection of street center lines 900 900 800-900 Minimum vertical sight 400' 300' 200' distance Minimum horizontal sight 800' 500' 300' distance Maximum grades within 100' center line of intersection 2% 3% 3% Notes. (1) All streets proposed within the Central District shall comply with the minimum right- of-way width, minimum pavement width, and other standards contained in the South Burlington City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines Handbook. (2) Minimum pavement width for local streets intended to serve primarily commercial or industrial uses outside of the Central District shall be 32 feet unless determined otherwise by the DRB pursuant to Section 15.12(D)(4) above. (3) Minimum radius of curves shall be measured at centerline of pavement. This standard is acknowledged to vary in order to conform to minimum sight distance requirements. (4) With parking (5) Without parking Bourn Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW236 r STREET DETAIL Typical Section 50'-0' LOCAL 60' 0' FUTURE COLLECTOR 80'-0" FUTURE ARTERIAL R.U.W. FACE OF GUARD RAIL 3" TOP SOIL A +.-.— 0.0278 • 9 41 rEL., -� 22`0" MIN J FILL SECTION T. CONC. PAV (2-1/2` BASE COURSE, 1-I/2" SURFACE) 3" CRUSHER RUN GRAVEL ,,—IS" GRAVEL BASE COURSE•,",'.4" for ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR 0.0279 FT/F'r . \fly V I titi� SAND FILL 2 -0 O UNDER DRAIN RAVEL BEDUI I STONE BEDDING WRAPPED IA LEDGE OWATER MAIN S' COVErt CUT SECTION QTE5' Materials to conform to VT Agency of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, 2001 editiol Use guard rail for fill greater than 10 feet or flatten slopes to 1-3. Base course to be placed first year. Surface course to be placed second year. All gravel to be approved by City Engineer or his/her designate. Residential, Commercial, Industrial STREET DETAIL Typical Section SO`0' LOCAL Co'.0- FUTURE COLLECTOR RO'-0' FUTURE ARTERIAL R.O.W. BIT. CONE PAVEMENT Buse SVAN 15'-0' LOCAL RE6. 2.5�T�S'T I6-0' L L DM, I Sidewalk 00208 FTTT AND COL1ECpR O f O'027t3 Fl%FT 3" CRUSHER RUN GRAVEL F-- 1/2" xr FDor O CONCRETE CURB GAS, 'EL.,� 15" GRAVEL IVSECOURSE 'S TORM SEWE0. ''''70P SOIL S-ILEC.. N (PVC OR MODE? 24'ARTERIALAND COLLECTOR SYW FILL ti NDAO ST<NItRATIpN q,NNI� "1 +I-ISRA I VEL BED 3(4' OR 1" STCNE leorE SAKIIARY SEWER ',VHERE IG 'NDER DRAIN IF NEEDED POSSIBLE, TELEPHONE, !3'-9"LOCA-RES, lECTRIC, TV/CABLE SHOULD 6E FLAL"cp 14'-9' LOCALCOM.11NDUS. 0" I--L'1L-BEES. IT�LO(•s �7:M IN A 1._J ( M'- WATER MAIN �J IP EASEMENr LOCATED OUTSIDE THE IfIGI ZREET R.O. W„ �I1.BCIUR A- a M i S. COVER I .OM. !NDUSTAU4, yp C3L ECTOR FILL SECTION CUT SEC r0N 1. Materials to conform to VT Agency of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, 2001 2. Base Course to be placed first Surface year. course to be placed second year. 3. All gravel to be approved by City Engineer edition. or his/her designate. 4. All Strom sewer structures to be approved by City Engineer. SCALE -NONE South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 1 ► ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW237 r1wure 1,-j, ,treet Details Street with Concrete Curbs B y t 10'-0" SINGLE DRIjE 15'-0" DOUBLE DR36'-0" COMMERCIA wJGRASS . GRASS X CURB ' r L 15'-0" SINGLE DRIVE 20 -0 DOU'— BLE DRIVE A 45-0" COMMERCIAL DRIVE B(_j A PLAN SIDEWALK THICKNESS IN DRIVE AREA: 6" RESIDENTIAL, S" COMMERCiAL,/INDUSTRIAL SECTION A -A EXPANSION JOINT - Ln (CONCRETE DRIVE) STREET r SECTION B-B I BITUMINOUS CONCRETE OR 6" CONCRETE DRIVE South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW238 Figure 15-1, Street Details For Streets Without Concrete Curbs A F* CULVERT 15" MIN. DIAMETER (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITYI N )GE OF SHCULDER y'� EDGE OF SHOULDER .,, EDGE OF P,VEMENT 1 — }RIVE GRADE CULVERT IF NEEDED SECTION A -A South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW239 r19uuc 1,-1, bireet oetaiis 100' R MIN. BIT. CONC. R.0.114. F. Entrances Typical Cul-de-Sac ter'! (1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service "D" or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service `"D" or better at full buildout. (2) Entrances to PUDs and subdivisions generally shall be separated by a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet on either side of a public street, in order to ensure safe access and traffic movement into and out of the PUD or subdivision. However, entrances to PUDs and subdivisions may be allowed on opposite sides of a public street if substantially aligned with each other. (3) Signalized entrances to PUDs and subdivisions shall be separated from signalized intersections (measured between the near edges of the driveway and intersection) based on the following street traffic volumes: South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW240 Table 15-2: Signalized Intersections to PUDs Projected Peak Hour v h per access lane Volume Distance feet Below 450 300 450-550 350 551-650 400 651-750 1450 751 and qreater 1 500 (4) The location and design of project access shall make provisions for improved access management and traffic safety. Specifically, the design of PUD and subdivision access points shall: (a) Maximize the use of secondary streets for access and circulation (b) Align access points with existing intersections and/or curb cuts (c) Consolidate existing curb cuts within the PUD property (d) Provide for safe access to abutting properties (e) Make provisions for safe access, with provisions for appropriate sight distances and accommodations for high - accident locations (f) Provide deceleration, acceleration and/or turn stacking lanes as appropriate to meet the standards in (1) above. (g) Provide adequate curb radii to accommodate the anticipated speeds and types of vehicles. G. Emergency Access. Paved access for emergency vehicles shall be provided to within one hundred (100) feet of the principal entry for multi -family dwellings, and commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments. All streets and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. H. Standards for Internal Circulation and Parking. The design of internal circulation patterns and parking areas shall meet the criteria for site plans in Article 14 of these Regulations. For applications in the Central District, the design shall meet the standards in Article 8 of these regulations. I. Street Jogs. Street jogs with center line offsets of less than two hundred (200) feet shall not be allowed, unless specifically approved by the DRB for purposes of traffic calming, upon concurrence of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW241 J. Culs-de-Sac. Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts. The length of a cul-de-sac street shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Development Review Board after consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. K. Street Names. Streets and their names, as approved by the E-911 Coordinator, shall be identified on the proposed plat. Proposed streets that are obviously in alignment with others already existing and named shall bear the names of existing streets. In no case shall the names for proposed streets duplicate existing street names within the City of South Burlington irrespective of the suffix, be it street, avenue, boulevard, driveway, place or court, or other similar suffix. All street names shall conform to E-911 Regulations, as amended. L. Street Signs and Numbering Systems. All street signs and posts shall be provided and installed by the City at the expense of the subdivider. Directional signs at the entrance of cluster developments and at other appropriate locations shall be provided to identify clearly the address and location of all residential units. All signs shall conform to the City sign ordinance. M. Sidewalks and Recreation Paths. (1) Sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be installed along both sides of arterial streets, along both sides of collector streets in commercial areas, along one side of collector streets in non- commercial areas, and along one side of local streets. The specific location of sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be determined by the DRB. (2) Sidewalk and/or path to curb distance shall be at least four (4) feet or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer (see street details in Figure 15-1). (3) Sidewalks shall be laid out so as to maximize southern exposure. (4) Sidewalks and/or paths in the Central District shall comply with the standards set forth in the South Burlington City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines Handbook. (5) Permanent pedestrian easements, twenty (20) feet in width, may be required through blocks six hundred (600) feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul-de-sacs, or in conjunction with utility easements in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or PUD or access to adjoining soutn Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW234 combination of single-family, duplex or multi -family dwellings. (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. (a) In any such application, the DRB shall require sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated to accommodate two (2) lanes of vehicle travel, City utilities, and a ten -foot wide grade -separated recreation path. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the DRB to grant waivers of public roadway standards subject to the provisions of §15.12(D)(4). E. Standards for Construction of Roadways (1) All streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant. (2) All public roadways shall be built to the specifications in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1, unless specifically authorized otherwise by the DRB in its final approval of the subdivision or PUD. (3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this section with the exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet with parking and twenty (20) feet without parking. (4) Modification of Roadway Standards. In any PUD or subdivision, the DRB may specifically authorize modification of the City's roadway standards in Table 15-1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with provisions for the public health, safety and welfare and the orderly development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief with respect to the City's ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effec(" June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW233 (2) Public roadway required. The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining property. (b) The right-of-way or proposed alignment of the proposed roadway is consistent with the right-of-way for a proposed City street shown on the Official Map; the City Council shall have the authority to determine if a proposed right-of-way with a similar location and/or alignment to a right-of-way on the Official Map must be required to be a public roadway. (c) The Development Review Board determines that the proposed length of a roadway or the significance of the roadway within the City's street network warrants public ownership. (d) The proposed roadway serves one (1) or more lots occupied by and/or proposed for non-residential or mixed - use development. (3) Private roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway or roadways within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway functions as a private frontage or service road to serve more than one (1) commercial lot, and the Development Review Board determines such a road would be consistent with the standards for PUDs in this Article. (b) The proposed roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD, and the Development Review Board determines such a road would be consistent with the standards for PUDs in this Article. (c) The proposed roadway serves three (3) or fewer single- family or duplex dwellings, in any combination of the two types of dwellings. (d) The proposed roadway has only one (1) point of access on another existing or proposed public roadway, and serves nine (9) or fewer dwelling units in any combination of single-family, duplex or multi -family dwellings. (e) The proposed roadway has two (2) or more points of access on another existing or proposed roadway and serves nineteen (19) or fewer dwelling units in any South Burlington Land Dev^1opment Regulations Effective a e 28, 2004 1 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW232 15.11 Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District (Article 10) The Development Review Board may approve a proposed subdivision, though development of one or more lots in the proposed subdivision with construction of a structure would exceed the limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District in these regulations ("view restrictions") in accordance with the provisions in Article 10. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. B. Relationship to Traffic Overlay District. In all PUDs and subdivisions in which the provisions of the Traffic Overlay District in Section 10.02 of these Regulations apply and in which the Traffic Overlay District provisions conflict with those of this section, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. C. Topography. Streets shall be logically related to the topography so as to produce usable lots, reasonable grades, and safe intersections in appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets. Adequate provisions shall be made in the project's stormwater management system to prevent flooding in the streets and erosion or other adverse impacts on adjacent properties. D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways. (1) In reviewing PUD, subdivision and master plan applications, the DRB shall have the authority to require the construction of roadways to City standards and the dedication of roadways to the City. The DRB also shall have the authority, subject to the limitations in (3) below, to waive this requirement and to allow private streets, and/or public streets not built to full City standards as set forth in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1. South Burlington L1 I Development Regulations EfA ive June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW242 neighborhoods and public property or community focal points such as parks, schools, and other public property, shopping centers, centers of employment, and community recreation facilities, etc. Additional pedestrian easements shall be reserved in conformance with the pedestrian trail and recreation path systems as indicated in the Official Map and Comprehensive Plan. 15.13 Utility Services A. Utility Easements. Easements of sufficient width shall be provided in locations acceptable to the City Engineer so as to serve both the proposed subdivision and existing and anticipated development outside the subdivision. B. Public Water Service. (1) The existing public utility system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. Construction shall conform to City Water Department requirements as outlined in "Water Department specifications", adopted March 8, 1978 (or as may be amended from time to time). All proposed off -site water line construction plans shall be approved by the Water Department prior to installation. (2) The subdivider or developer may be required to design and install water mains and appurtenances of larger sizes than the immediate need for his development would require in order to conform to the City Water Department and/or Champlain Water District master plan for water main sizes. C. Private/On-Site Water Service A community system or other means of providing water to the subdivision may be approved by the DRB and shall be designed and installed in accordance with all applicable municipal and state regulations and standards. Community water systems shall be designed in such a way that they may eventually be connected to the municipal water supply system. Evidence of the location and availability of potable water in adequate quantities shall be provided. Due consideration in the location of community or individual water systems shall be given with respect to building sites, roadways, septic systems, flood water levels, and other factors affecting the potability of water supplies. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGT®N DEPARTMENT OF PLANNP4G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 FAX To: �'1 (. I From: g)l 61n Fax: Pages: Cl including cover sheet Phone: Date: cj Re: Wp L IG J� y _ CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: C G, W 1 t ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 158 (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project's overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. 12.03 Bartlett Brook Watershed Overlay District BBW A. Purpose. The Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay District is hereby formed in order to control stormwater runoff and prevent worsening of erosion problems currently experienced within the Bartlett Brook and North Brook watersheds. It is the intent of this overlay district to require that all land development within the Bartlett and North Brook watersheds incorporate appropriate stormwater management design to ensure that the development will not adversely impact the stormwater flow characteristics of the streams. B. Applicability. In addition to the provisions of any other section(s) of these regulations and the provisions of the underlying zoning district, the uses allowed in any underlying district in the Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay District shall be subject to the following limitations and procedures. C. Standards of Development (1) The provisions of this Section 12.03 shall apply to any land development within the BBW Overlay District which requires review by the Development Review Board (i.e., site plan, subdivision, etc.) or conditional use approval by the South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 157 C. Wetlands Map and Applicability of Standards. (1) All wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified on the map entitled "Wetlands Map" as set forth in Section 3.02 of these regulations or as identified through field delineation, and a buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any such wetland, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (2) In the absence of site -specific delineations, the City's Wetlands Map shall control as to the location of wetlands and wetland buffer areas subject to the provisions of this section. D. Submittal and Review of Field Delineation and Wetlands Report (1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Wetlands Map, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area. In the absence of such site -specific delineations and information, the City's Wetlands Map shall control. (2) Applicants are encouraged to submit a field delineation and wetlands report as early in the development review process as possible. (3) The DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of any field delineation and wetlands report. The City's wetlands consultant shall submit an evaluation of the field delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development's consistency with the standards in (D) above, and outlining the following: (a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources without altering the layout of the proposed project. (b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources that involve altering the layout of the proposed project. (4) The Natural Resources Committee shall review in a timely manner the field delineation, wetlands report, and technical review and provide recommendations to the Development Review Board on the measures identified in (3) above. E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 155 (c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. For purposes of these regulations, reconstruction may include razing the existing structure and/or foundation and constructing a new structure in accordance with the provisions of the underlying zoning district regulations and this section. (d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. (e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. (3) Erosion control measures and water -oriented development along Lake Champlain. Within the area along Lake Champlain defined in Section (D)(1)(a) above, the installation of erosion control measures and water -oriented development may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the following standards are met: (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. In making a determination pursuant to this criterion, the DRB may request renderings or other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the visual impact of the proposed improvement. (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. E. Potash Brook Tributary 3 Requirements For lands located within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of Tributary 3 of Potash Brook, as delineated in the Potash Brook Watershed Restoration Plan, the DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review South Burlington La ( Development Regulations Effer`;%le June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 156 of proposed land development activities requiring DRB approval. Such technical review shall have the specific purpose of recommending site plan, stormwater and landscaping measures that will ensure that land development activities are consistent with the City's overall plan for ecosystem restoration in the Tributary 3 watershed. F. Landscaping and Maintenance Standards within Stream Buffers f reservedl G. Watercourse Alteration and Relocation. (1) The alteration or relocation of a watercourse is permitted subject to the approval of the Development Review Board provided the alteration or relocation: (a) Is needed to accomplish a clear public purpose or objective; (b) Will not reduce the ability of the watercourse to carry or store flood waters adequately; (c) Will not have an adverse impact on downstream or upstream water quality; (d) Will not affect adversely the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; (e) Will not affect adversely the habitat value of the watercourse or immediately adjacent areas or wetlands. (2) In making findings relative to these criteria, the DRB shall be authorized to invoke technical review by a professional in hydrology or geomorphology, and/or to rely on the issuance of a Stream Alteration Permit issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation as evidence that the above criteria have been met. (3) The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee shall in a timely manner review and make advisory comments to the DRB on any application made pursuant to this section. 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide appropriate protection of the City's wetland resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, and flood control. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 1S4 (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro -electric power generation (5) Review and Comment by Natural Resources Committee. The Natural Resources Committee shall in a timely manner review applications made pursuant to section (4) above and provide specific comments'to the DRB as to the proposed project's compliance with the general purposes and standards enumerated in section (2) above. D. Pre -Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to pre- existing structures within the areas defined as follows: (a) All lands within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum; (b) All lands within the Queen City Park zoning district located within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Potash Brook. (2) Expansion and construction of pre-existing structures. Within the areas defined in Section (D)(1) above, the expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met: (a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. For purposes of these Regulations, expansion may include the construction of detached accessory structures including garages and utility sheds. (b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. M ON on on ON South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 153 complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these Regulations. (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City's stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 152 which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum. (2) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base .flows in the City's streams and Lake Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows: (a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below. (b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and shall not be mowed more than one (1) time per calendar year after establishment. (c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date of these regulations. (d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that: i. There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property. ii. Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt. (3) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in accordance with the standards for non - South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 151 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards 12.02Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures 12.03 Bartlett Brook Watershed Overlay District (BBW) 12.04Potash Brook Watershed Overlay District (PBW) [Reserved] 12.05 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) [Reserved] 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection and improvement of the surface waters and streams within the City of South Burlington, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay, and the watersheds contained wholly or partially within the City. These regulations and standards are intended to lead to the establishment and protection of natural areas along the City's surface waters to provide improved protection for water quality and the provision of open space areas and wildlife habitat. It is the further purpose of this Section to provide for the retention of pre- existing residential neighborhoods located along Lake Champlain and Potash Brook in a manner consistent with the resource protection goals of this Section and the Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Surface Water Buffer Standards ("Stream Buffers") (1) Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows: (a) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook, with the exception of lands within the Queen City Park zoning district which shall be subject to the provisions of (D) below. (b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the edge of the channel of the Winooski River (c) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of any minor stream (d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of a drainage way (d) All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain, South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 28, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH BURL INGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 6, 2004 Krista Reinhart Pioneer Environmental 48 Green Street, Suite 2 Vergennes, VT 05491 Re: Retrovest's South Village Project Dear Krista: Enclosed is a copy of Dori Barton's concerns with Retrovest's wetland delineations. I will contact Retrovest to ensure that the City has the most recent delineations, and then forward them to you as soon as possible. Thanks. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, _..........._..._........_ r W Brian Roberts�b`�n Associate Planner ARRO WOOD ENVIRONMENTAL 950 BERT WHITE ROAD HUNTINGTONYT 05462 (802) 434-7276 FAX: (802) 434-2102 October 4, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson City of South Burlington Via email Re: Wetland "Problem Areas" Calkins Problem Dear Brian: As per our conversation today, I am providing you with a map of the wetland "Problem Areas" that we have identified as needing further review. There are 12 areas which were identified in the field in August with Art Gilman. Each of the problem areas is described below. Problem Area 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. Problem Area 2: It has been agreed that this is not a problem area. Problem 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. Problem Area 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. Problem Area 5: We believe that there are additional wetland areas in this location most likely extending the wetland finger currently mapped. Problem Area 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 on upland". Problem Area 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. Problem Area 8: Thei _ ,s additional Class II wetland at the p, operty 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. Permission to access the property for delineation purposes has been granted. Problem Area 9: There is additional wetland, likely Class II, 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. Problem Areas 10 and 1Z 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. Problem Area 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. We are pleased that the City has invoked technical review of the wetland boundary and look forward to seeing the results of this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions. Sincerely, Dori Barton Wetland Ecologist Attachment Caulkins rroperty: South Burlington, Vermont N Q Problem Areas 8115/04 GPS Data 400 0 400 800 Feet 6 28_04_wetland.shp Parcel Town Boundaries DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 September 2004, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; M. Boucher, R. Farley, G. Quimby, C. Bolton, M. Kupersmith, L. Kupferman Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; B. Cimonetti, D. & M. Wetzel, J. Anderson, S. Vallee, D. Schram, D. Scheuer, D. Marshall, R. Chellman, Dr. Clifford, L. Yankowski, S. Walker, S. Dopp, M. Cypes, B. Hibbitts, M. Bradshaw, L. Cummings, K. Donoghue, T. Bianchi, D. Barton, N. Baker, M. Hall, M.Holgate, J. Dilmon, R. Foley, A. Netzel, C. Eglund, A. Vvallman, S. Hill, D. Senecal-Albrecht, P. Allison, C. Pallutto, D. Capen, D. Fay, P. DiStefano, E. Kuehn, C. & J. Frank, F. & E. Smith, J. Cousino, S. Moore, E. Bensen, R. Trevithick, P. Calkins, M. Fiske, J. Loran, S. Walker, P. Clifford, B.Atkinson, J. Oteshan, G. & S. Lemieux, P. & B. Nowak, H. Davison, R. Bogart, R. Unsworth 1. Other Business: a. Mr. Belair reported on 2 administrative approvals he had recently issued: at 63 Ethan Allen Drive, an accessory structure; at 5 Gregory Drive, a change of use for the Carpenters Union headquarters. b. Members agreed to meet on 9 and 16 November to accommodate the national election activities. c. Members agreed to allow discussion of the main agenda item until 11 p.m. 2. Continued Public Hearing: Final Plat Application #SD-04-50 of University Mall Realty Trust to amend approval #SD-03-70 to expand the shopping center by 1884 sq. ft. GLA at 155 Dorset St. The amendment consists of eliminating condition #11 which requires a mutual access easement to the property to the north (University Inn): Mr. Dinklage advised that the applicant is requesting a continuance. Mr. Belair explained that staff is working with both property owners and would like to continue that process. Mr. Boucher moved to continued Final Plat Application #SD-04-50 of University Mall Realty Trust to 5 October 2004. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 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 provided an orientation to the plan. The frontage on Spear St. is 3100 feet, and the property goes back 3500 feet. Two acres of the property is in Shelburne. Mr. Marshall indicated the portions of the property that fall within the View Protection Zone. He also showed the location of wetlands on the property and reviewed all the drainage patterns. Mr. Chellman then explained that this project is part of the "new urbanism" movement and has been certified as "smart growth." The aim is to create spaces that are inviting to people and not just to cars. Developments such as these are "walkable." Mr. Chellman showed photos of similar projects in the country. He noted that the optimal size of the community is %4 mile from the center to the edge (about a 5 minutes walk). Projects feature varied architecture and housing types. There is a mix of single family, duplex, and multi -family units. The Intervale Foundation will also have a farming operation as part of the project. Mr. Chellman then showed the current site plan. He noted that there will be crossings of the wetlands on Midland Avenue and on a new street. The intent is to narrow streets in these areas with a rec path on one side. There will be 3 connections to Spear Street. Phase I of the project will include 156 units and the Gailor School. Mr. Chellman noted that they are aware of the concern of Dorset Farms for the extension of Midland Avenue which they fear will result in "cut thru" traffic. Mr. Chellman stressed that the street design will not be a direct route, and this design will keep speeds down. Street design will also discourage speed of traffic. Streets will be narrower. To illustrate his point, Mr. Chellman showed a graph of the correlation between speed, street width and accidents. They are asking for 20 feet of pavement in the alleys, etc, 24 feet in the farmlands, and 26 feet for streets where parking is allowed on one side. Collector streets will be designed for 25 mph speed, and other streets for 20 mph. Mr. Chellman said they are aware that you can't post speeds under 20 mph. He feels this Vermont law should be changed. Mr. Anderson asked how many units are being proposed in the "bulge" area. Mr. Marshall said 111 units. Mr. Anderson cited three other areas of wetland disturbance other than the road crossings. He asked why the roads through the wetlands are so wide if the intent is to reduce speeds. Mr. Dinklage explained the need to handle emergency vehicles and the need to address the turning radius for fire trucks. He said this is a compromise that is the narrowest street the city would be comfortable with. -2- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 Ms. Yankowksi asked if the design of the roads through the wetlands would allow water to flow through. Mr. Marshall said water will be allowed to flow through; there will be no dams of any sort. They will adopt policies to respect the existing conditions (top of the bank to top of the bank span). There is no intent to allow flooding during high water. Mr. Atkinson asked how a moving van could get into those narrow driveways. Mr. Dinklage said the Street Dept. was concerned about this and are now satisfied. Dr. Clifford, a Shelburne resident, asked about the impact on Spear St. traffic. Mr. Chellman said a traffic light at Allen Road/Spear Street will improve entry into Spear Street for everyone. Mr. Dinklage asked when that would be warranted. Mr. Chellman was not sure but would talk with the city's Spear Street consultant. A Dorset Farms resident was concerned that their development was not designed to accommodate this proposal. Their backyards back up to Midland Avenue, and children are playing in the street all the time. Mr. Dinklage suggested residents talk with the City regarding mitigation of traffic speeds. He then read from the original approval stipulation regarding the connection to Midland Avenue. Mr. Chellman said they fully support traffic calming implementation. Ms. Schramm noted that one of the proposed accesses to Spear Street is across from her driveway and she already has a hard time getting out now. She felt this would make it much worse. She added that at the City Council meeting the people presenting the Spear Street study said they used 2003 traffic numbers. He also indicated that Allen/Spear and Swift/Spear are failing intersections at this time. She asked why it is necessary for this development to have 3 accesses. Mr. Chellman said the 3 accesses provide "dispersion." Ms. Dopp of the South Burlington Land Trust asked what is desirable about the connector road. She felt the neighborhood is large enough and doesn't need to connect to other neighborhoods. Mr. Dinklage said that connection has been in the City's Master Plan for many years. Ms. Dopp felt that should be visited with new information. She noted that the Arrowood Study said the city should minimize east -west connectors because of wildlife concerns. Mr. Chellman said the original connection was a "highway" connection. What they propose is much different. It is a "connection" not a "through street." Ms. Walker asked why there is such a density of development in the southwest portion. She felt it disproportionately affects Spear Street. People north of Allen Rd. would live across from a farm; those to the south of Allen Road would live across from houses. Mr. Chellman explained there is a view protection area where the farm is. You can't put housing there. This protects the view of the mountains from the road. Mr. Marshall added that there are also setbacks along the road that have to be met. -3- r � \ / J DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 Mr. Cypes was concerned that during the week, peak traffic is mostly going toward Burlington, but during the weekend it would be heading toward the recreation areas. And that's when the children are not in school. He suggested medians and hedges to get a visual affect that would slow people down. He said that "cut through" traffic is not "socially responsible" traffic. Mr. Dinklage reminded people that the City Council is the venue for a discussion of traffic calming. Ms. Cummings asked if Spear St. would be widened at Allen Rd. Mr. Dinklage said the recommendation is to add a left turn lane southbound into South Village. Ms. Cummings then asked if the city is doing anything to encourage traffic to stay on Shelburne Rd. instead of using Spear St. Mr. Dinklage said they are, and the City Manager would be the one to ask about that. Ms. Primm said she felt this project will change the character of Spear Street greatly. She thought it was a good plan but should be located somewhere else. Mr. Donoghue said he has always believed people should be able to do what they want with their land. He was concerned with the city "putting the cart before the horse" in this instance. There have never been enough east -west corridors, and there is still no good way to get from this location to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Bianchi agreed. He said there is a lot of thought put into this plan. He felt east -west connectors are OK but not when they split a neighborhood in half and go through people's backyards. He felt roads should be better planned. Mr. Bradshaw asked about the apartments in the wooded area. Mr. Chellman said they have been removed. Ms. Walker suggested a van for transportation to and from this development. Mr. Chellman said they are very supportive of public transit and noted people will be able to walk to bus stops. Ms. Hibbitts was concerned with the density and suggested a bond issue for the city to buy some of this land. Mr. Marshall said the applicant has to comply with rules and regulations, and there is a density that goes with that. Mr. Kupferman asked if traffic to and from the school is included in the traffic count. Mr. Chellman said it is. Mr. Kupferman suggested a small convenience store so people don't have to use their cars for small purchases. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Planning Commission is considering that overall issue. Mr. Chellman said they would love to see some mixed uses here. Mr. Kupferman noted that Bruce Hoar has asked for technical review of all the waivers being requested. Mr. Bolton was concerned that if the project is built incrementally and doesn't work, what would there be for back-up. Mr. Chellman said they will test the market on Phase I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPT'EMBER 2004 • There will be a provision to widen most roads, if needed. The amount of land dedicated for streets is the same as elsewhere in the city. He then stressed that they have 300 of these projects nationwide and have never had to remove a curb to widen a street. Mr. Atkinson asked if the city is satisfied that the developer can complete the project without financial difficulty. Mr. Dinklage said that is not the DRB's responsibility. The city will ask that the Midland Avenue connection be permitted before any houses are built. Mr. Belair added that the city requires a performance bond prior to building of infrastructure, so if the developer can't build it, the city can. Ms. Schramm asked if there was ever consideration given to putting in 50 luxurious homes in this location. She suggested a park instead of a farm. She felt there would be more green space in Manhattan than in South Burlington. She was also concerned with farm equipment on Spear St. Mr. Chellman said that 2/3 of this site will remain green and only 1/3 will be developed. Ms. Schramm noted the small city she grew up in is now nothing but concrete. Mr. Scheuer said there will be 3 miles of walking trails created as part of this project and these will be open to Spear St. residents. Mr. Anderson said he doesn't see anything that requires dedicated open space. Mr. Dinklage said the dedication of open space will be important. Mr. Belair added that the city requires a recreation impact fee for developments and this development will be no different. Mr. Cimonetti noted there was a meeting of the Rec Path Committee with this developer. Walking paths and bike paths were discussed, and it was the recommendation of the Committee that all rec paths in this development be dedicated to the city and become city property. Mr. Cimonetti suggested the Recreation Department might also have some recommendations if they were asked to review this project. Members of the Board at Pinnacle noted that have no space for recreation. He felt this developer should be required to provide land for kids to play. Mr. Scheuer said that the school facility would have to provide recreation fields. He didn't know the program of the school yet. The potential for playing fields is one reason Gailor is choosing to come to this site. Mr. Scheuer also added that Retrovest will turn over control of open space to the Homeowners Assn. Another Pinnacle board member said it should be the city's job if there are covenants to be sure the developer gives control to the Homeowners Assn. if they are supposed to. He said this hasn't happened at Pinnacle. Mr. Belair said the city does not review homeowner agreements. They city does ask that some things be added to those agreements such as not allowing conversion of garages to living space. Mr. Scheuer then showed the plan including rec paths. He also showed some possible locations for the school fields. -5- \L / DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 Mr. Cimonetti noted that the Master Plan would be constraining beyond the first phases of the development. If the Master Plan says there will be a farm, and the applicant then says that will be a ballfield, how does the city deal with a Master Plan that doesn't have a "master concept." Mr. Dinklage said the Master Plan includes the total number of units, layout of infrastructure. It is then up to the Board to decide how specific to be regarding use of open space. Mr. Kupferman said he prefers a Master Plan approach with the understanding that not everything is fully developed. He added that people need to understand that things change. Mr. Dinklage said one of the most important restrictions is the number of units. If the zoning were to change, the developer would have to come back to the DRB and revise the Master Plan. Mr. Belair noted that agriculture uses are not under the jurisdiction of the DRB. If they are approved by the Agriculture Department, they are exempt from local zoning. Mr. Hall said they are not locking themselves into specifics that may not come for 10 years down theiroad. They are doing a "footprint." Mr. Dinklage said the Board will ask for a plan for use of the farm space. He said there needs to be a long-term plan. Ms. Kupersmith asked at what point the state gets control of agricultural uses. Ms. Lafferty said she would have to look that up. Mr. Robertson said it has to be a bona fide agriculture use to be exempt from local zoning, but the state does look at the local zoning when making their judgments. Staff also agreed to research agriculture usage. Mr. Dinklage noted that staff has recommended the units in the "bulge" be distributed elsewhere. Mr. Robertson said 65 lots are involved. Mr. Kupferman agreed; as an alternative he suggested the complex be reduced by 65 lots. Mr. Vallee showed areas designated as restricted on the plan. He noted that 42% of the project is being built in these areas. He felt that if the city pays attention to the Official City Map for some things, it should pay attention to developable and non -developable areas. Mr. Vallee noted that Section 15.18b has an absolute prohibition against development in a wetland, prominent ridges, etc. The "bulge" is also identified as a wildlife corridor to be preserved. Mr. Wetzel noted that Midland Avenue is crossed twice for the rec path. He felt this should happen only once. Mr. Boucher then moved to invoke technical review of the wetland delineation to reconcile a difference of opinion. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage said the Board will need to know how the applicant proposes to define, manage, and maintain "affordable housing." DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 Mr. Bolton then moved to invoke technical review for design of streets, specifically with relation to waivers requested. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boucher then moved to continue the hearing until 16 November 2004. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 of South Village Communities, LLC, for a planned unit development of Phase I consisting of 150 residential units and a 100-student educational facility, of a 334 residential unit project, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Dinklage said the Board will want requirements delineated for application of herbicides and/or pesticides near the wetland. They also want delineation between people's backyards and the wetland. At some point, the Board will also want detailed plans so that parking spaces can be counted. Ms. Quimby noted the concern of the Fire Chief with streets with parking on 2 sides. Mr. Dinklage said the Board will also want assurance that ecological restoration will happen. Mr. Belair said if they propose it and the Board approves it, it has to happen. Mr. Scheuer suggested some kind of bonding arrangement. Mr. Bolton was concerned with shielding narrow streets from winds and snow in case of an early morning rescue need. Mr. Dinklage stressed the need to think about a winter maintenance program for those streets. Mr. Chellman noted the wetland crossings will have curbs on both sides. Mr. Vallee noted the project is split between 2 watersheds and the city has very specific regulations for stormwater discharge in the Bartlett Brook Watershed. He said he hasn't seen that plan yet. He also question discharge into the wetland buffer. Mr. Marshall said they will do what is necessary. Mr. Wetzel asked about road lighting. Mr. Marshall said they are looking for limited lighting for the project. Mr. Robertson noted that CWD has some concerns regarding water. Mr. Boucher then moved to continue the hearing until 16 November 2004. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. -7- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 2004 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Clerk / Date -8- FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: Findings of Fact, application of MBL Associates for a planned residential development involving 202.2 acres of land and consisting of 161 single family lots and 60 multi -family units, Dorset Street. On the 12th of October, 1993 the South Burlington Planning Commission approved the request of MBL Associates for final plat approval under Section 204 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations based on the following findings: 1. This project consists of the subdivision of 161 single family lots and the construction of 60 multi -family units in 15 buildings for a total of 221 units. This development will take place on a total of 202.2 acres, 156.72 acres on the westerly side of Dorset Street and 45.48 acres on the easterly side. The entire developed portion of the project is proposed for the westerly side. Therefore, this application involves the transfer of density from the parcel east of Dorset Street to the parcel west of Dorset Street. Preliminary plat approval was granted on 3/30/93. 2. Access: Access to the development will be via an 80 foot r.o.w. which will bisect the project and eventually continue westerly to connect with Allen Road. Off from the main east -west access road will be two (2) main loops, one to the north and one to the south, each with a smaller loop within the larger one. These loops will provide access to all the lots and multi -family units. This project should be conditioned on the requirement that access to all the lots be from the secondary access roads and not from the main access road. 3. Since it is proposed that there be only one (1) access from Dorset Street until Allen Road Extension is continued to connect to Spear Street, the existing barn access road will be extended to connect with Catkin Drive and will be used to provide emergency access in the event the main access is blocked. 4. A note on the plan indicates that this emergency access road is to be maintained by the homeowners association. This second access and the requirement that the developer or homeowners association maintain this road was a stipulation of the preliminary plat approval. 5. The plan shows a 60 foot wide strip of land between lots 21 and 83 to provide a future connection with the Lang property to the north. H 6.. Density: The PRD provision in the proposed Southeast Quadrant zoning may allow this property to generate 222 units (maximum base density) plus 25% or 278 units maximum. The maximum number of units allowed is based on the developable area as shown on the Southeast Quadrant zoning map multiplied by 4. The developable area in this project is 66.2 acres which results in a maximum of 264 units. The applicant is proposing 221 units. 7. Nonbuildable area: The applicant submitted a plan showing the development and restricted areas as shown on the Southeast Quadrant zoning map and how they relate to the development plan. Either all or a portion of 42 lots and two (2) multi -family buildings are located in the restricted area. 8. There are three ( 3 ) main restricted areas in which lots are proposed. One is for the Allen Road Corridor which the applicant is proposing to shift to the north. The second is a north -south wetland following a stream. The applicant has determined that the wetland is smaller than what appears in the Southeast Quadrant zoning map. The third area is the scenic corridor setback along Dorset Street. The applicant is proposing 13 lots in this area behind the existing barn (lots 98-108 and 127 and 128). 9. Under Section 26.606 of the zoning regulations the Planning Commission must review proposed development activity or the location of residential development lots in a restricted area according to the criteria contained in this section. The applicant submitted comments addressing these criteria. The Planning Commission as part of preliminary plat approval allowed residential activity in restricted areas. 10. Wetlands: The plans now show all wetland areas impacted by this development. This was a condition of preliminary plat approval. The development will impact 0.67 acres of wetland and impact 2.7 acres of wetland and buffer area. 11. Lot size: The minimum lot size for single family lots in the Southeast Quadrant district is 12,000 square feet (.27 acres) with 85 feet of frontage on local streets and 100 feet of frontage on collectors and arterials. The applicant is requesting a modification to the zoning regulations to allow lots smaller than the minimum. The smallest lot area proposed is 7,200 square feet. The smallest frontage proposed is 55 feet. 12. Traffic: A traffic impact analysis was prepared by the applicant. The report projects that at full build -out, which is estimated to be 1997, this project will generate 205 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 13. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the following intersections: proposed Dorset Street/Project Access, Dorset Street/Swift Street and Dorset Street/Barstow Road. The K results of the level -of -service (LOS) analyses at the proposed Dorset Street/Project access indicate very good LOS, acceptable LOS at the Dorset Street/Barstow Road intersection and poor LOS for the eastbound Swift Street approach at the Dorset Street/Swift Street intersection. The analysis indicates that this approach is currently at or over capacity for design hour conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for 1993 existing conditions at the Dorset Street/Swift Street intersection which indicates that a traffic signal is warranted. 14. Warrant analyses were performed for northbound left -turning traffic and southbound right -turning traffic entering the project. It was determined that neither a left -turn lane nor a right -turn lane is warranted. A preliminary plat condition required that a southbound right turn deceleration lane at the project access be shown on the final plat plan. This requirement is being met. This condition also required the applicant to install a signal at the Swift Street/Dorset Street intersection prior to occupancy of the first unit. 15. Recreation Path/Pedestrian Trail: At preliminary plat approval the Planning Commission required that the final plat plan incorporate the recommendations of the Recreation Path Committee (RPC). The RPC at their 9/7/93 and 10/4/93 meetings reviewed the final plat plans and submitted comments to the Planning Commission. Their most recent memo recommends that the proposed recreation path located on the west side of Dorset Street running in a north -south direction be eliminated. This would then allow the recreation path along Midland Avenue to be relocated to the north side of the street. The RPC prefers the north side but either side is acceptable. 16. A note should be added to the plan to the effect that the developer would donate a 20 foot wide recreation path easement running north -south along the western edge of the property. The exact location to be determined prior to construction. 17. Sewer: Municipal sewer system will serve this development via a 6 inch force main to Kennedy Drive. The sewer allocation being requested is 116,850 gpd plus 7,872 gpd for infiltration for a total of 124,729 gpd. This is 4,379 gpd more than was allocated at preliminary plat approval. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval will remain in effect is tied to roadway construction. The roadway serving this development must be completed within eight (8) years of final plat approval. This was a condition of preliminary plat approval. 18. The applicant has been working with the City Engineer on the design of the proposed sewerage system. The system is being oversized at the City Engineer's request in order to accommodate future development in this area of the City that will tie into the system. Both the City°s sewer regulations (Article VIII) and 3 subdivision regulations (Section 406) require the City to pay the difference between the cost of the improvements necessary for the subdivision and the cost of over -designing and over -building. These regulations require the City Council to approve an over - design prior to the Commission granting approval. 19. Water: Municipal water system will serve this development via a 12 inch main and will connect with the existing CWD main adjacent to the storage tank on Dorset Street. Applicant has obtained a letter from both the South Burlington Water Department and Champlain Water District indicating that the estimated demand of 113,400 gpd can be met. 20. The applicant is increasing the water demand to 116,850 gpd or a 3,450 gpd increase. A letter from the water department should be obtained for this additional demand. 21. Phasing: Project will be "market phased" and built out over a four (4) year period. The applicant estimates that 15 multi- family units and up to 45 single-family homes will be built each year. 22. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for the multi -family units based on building costs is $52,500 which is not being met. The value of the landscaping proposed is $49,030 for a $3,470 shortfall. The applicant should makeup the shortfall by adding a few more trees to the buffer strip along the east side of lots 1-17. The value of the street trees proposed is $158,485 and the value of the two (2) trees per lot is $96,600. The total landscaping value is $307,585. 23. Archeological sites: The State Division for Historic Preservation has identified an archaeologically sensitive area on the western side of the project area. Plans do not take into account the protection of this sensitive area. Section 19.151h of the zoning regulations requires the applicant to show that this development will not have an undue adverse effect on and will protect rare and irreplaceable historic sites. The plans do not show the area of potential archeological sensitivity as required at preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated that this area will be shown on the plans when the location of the boundaries become available from the State Office of Historic Preservation. 24. At the preliminary plat hearing, the Planning Commission requested that the area of potential archeological impact be shown on the drawings so that the Commission could clearly see which lots/units are involved. The Commission discussed imposing a condition which would prevent a zoning/building permit from being issued for these involved lots until the applicant can present evidence from the Division for Historic Preservation (SHPO) that the lots/units will not adversely impact archeological sites. This area should be shown on the plans. 4 25. Open Space: Applicant or Homeowners Association should cut grass within open space/scenic corridor (i.e., along both sides of Dorset Street and around farm buildings) at least once a year to maintain open space and scenic character of the area. This was a requirement of preliminary plat approval. The concept of maintaining open fields was first recommended by the Southeast Ouadrant Committee. 26. Recreation: The applicant should be given a credit of $75 per unit for the construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street r.o.w. This will consist of the recreation path located on the east side of Dorset Street. The applicant will be required to pay the difference between the $75 credit and the recreation fee in effect at the time of permit. The credit was a condition of preliminary plat approval. 27. School impact: A school impact fee ordinance has not yet been adopted. The school district is currently working to complete such an ordinance. The applicant will be subject to this impact fee if and when it is adopted. 28. Lighting: The applicant is proposing street lighting similar to what is in Butler Farms and Oak Creek. The lamps will be 70 watt high pressure sodium mounted on 20 foot poles with cut-off luminaries. Each multi -family building will have eight (8) building mounted 60 watt incandescent soffit and sidewall lights. 29. Parking: The applicant is providing 2.5 spaces per unit (including garage spaces) in the immediate vicinity of the buildings. An additional 34 overflow/storage spaces are also being provided. This results in 184 spaces being provided and the minimum requirement being 135 spaces plus an area for recreation vehicles/boats. 30. Subdivision Plat --- all easements should be identified as to size and type. The plat should also be revised to reflect the revised easements shown on the engineering drawings and should indicate which are private. --- recreation path easements must be shown. --- plat should use street names shown on engineering drawings. 31. Other: --- the boundary survey prepared by Krebs & Lansing shows a 20.09 acre "protected parcel" within the development area. This parcel was created as part of a previously approved subdivision and a condition of approval for an Act 250 permit. The purpose of this condition was to preserve agricultural 9 soils. The applicant has indicated that as part of their Act 250 application they will be requesting the termination of this restriction. DECISION & CONDITIONS Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Planning Commission approves the final plat application of MBL Associates for a planned residential development involving 202.2 acres of land and consisting of 161 single-family lots and 60 multi -family units as depicted on a 45 page set of plans, page two (2) entitled "Southeast Summit, Overall Site Plan", prepared by Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc. and dated October, 1992, last revised 7/14/93, and as depicted on a seven (7) page subdivision plat, page one entitled "Southeast Summit, Subdivision Plat of Common Areas", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. and dated August, 1993, with the following stipulations: 1. In accordance with section 26.602 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission approves development and the creation of lots for development upon land which is designated as "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. It is the commission's opinion that based on the information submitted by the applicant the proposed development will not adversely affect wetlands on the property. Also, it is the Commission's opinion that the goals for maintaining an open space corridor along the north -south arterial roadways in the Southeast Quadrant will be promoted even with the creation of lots 98-108 and 127 and 128. The existing barn buildings and residences along Dorset Street help screen this area from Dorset Street and the encroachment of these lots into the restricted area is minor. Finally, the Planning Commission supports moving the r.o.w. for a future east -west collector road to the north as proposed. 2. Driveway access to all lots shall be from local streets and shall not be from the east -west street known as Street "M" or Midland Avenue (i.e., 80 foot r.o.w.). 3. The applicant shall be responsible for the following traffic impact mitigation improvements: a) Add southbound right turn deceleration lane on Dorset Street at project access. The deceleration lane shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first unit. b) Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Swift Street and Dorset Street. The signal shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first residential unit. The applicant shall post a bond to cover the cost of the signal prior to issuance of any zoning/building permit. The signal shall be installed in accordance with the specifications of the City's Public Works Department. 0 4. The plans shall be revised prior to recording to show the following changes to the proposed recreation path system: a) The plans shall show a proposed path and recreation path easement along the east side of the Dorset Street r.o.w. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing this portion of the path. b) The proposed north -south recreation path and easement in the vicinity of the barns and emergency access road shall be deleted from the plans. c) The proposed recreation path along the east side of lots 1-17 shall be shown as an easement only, and not as a path to be constructed by the applicant. d) The plans shall show a recreation path easement running north -south between the Shelburne Town line and Street "M" (i.e., Midland Avenue) along the westernmost property line of the project. The plans shall include a note indicating that the exact location of the path is to be determined by the City at a future date. 5. The Planning Commission approves a credit of $75 per residential unit for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of the public street right-of-way. This credit may be applied toward required recreation fees. At time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $75 per unit credit. 6. The developer shall be required to install two (2) trees on each lot as required in Section 19.104(a) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 7. Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits, the applicant shall post the following landscape bonds to cover the installation cost and value of all proposed landscaping: (a) a $52,500 bond for site landscaping, (b) a $158,485 bond for proposed street trees, and (c) a $96,600 bond for the proposed two (2) trees per single- family lot. The bond(s) shall remain if effect for three (3) years from the date of planting to assure that the planted landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. 8. Legal documents for all public streets (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) and easements (e.g., utility easements and recreation path easements) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits. 7 9. In accordance with Section 301.5 of the subdivision regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g., streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.), the developer shall submit to the City Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a registered engineer. 10. A second access to the development shall be provided for emergency access as shown on the plans. This emergency access shall be maintained (including plowing) by the developer or homeowner's association until such time as the east -west collector road is extended to and connected with Spear Street, or an alternate second access is provided to the development and is approved by the Planning Commission. If the emergency access is to be maintained by a homeowner's association, it shall be so stated in the association "bylaws". 11. Maintenance of the mailbox turn -out shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 12. Prior to recording the final plat plans, the plans shall be revised to show the following: a) the landscape plan shall show an additional $3,470 in buffer landscaping to the east of lots 1-17. The landscape plan shall also indicate that street trees will be planted at least 6 feet from the face of curb. b) the subdivision plat(s) and engineering drawings shall show all easements (e.g., recreation paths, and private and public utility easements) and clearly identify each as to size and type. c) the subdivision plat shall show proposed street names. d) the area of potential archeological sensitivity shall be shown. e) Street "M" shall be widened to accommodate three lanes at its intersection with Dorset Street (i.e., one westbound lane, one eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane) 13. A bond for streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, sewer and water shall be posted prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 14. No zoning/building permit will be issued for a lot until the street serving that lot has a gravel sub -base installed in conformance with City specifications. 15. The planning Commission approves a total sewer allocation of 124,729 gpd for this development. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within eight (8) years of Act 250 approval. The sewer allocation for any lots or multi -family buildings served by roadways which are not completed within this eight (8) year time limit shall be lost unless -reapproved by the Planning Commission. 16. The applicant shall obtain approval from the City Council for the City to pay the extra cost of over sizing the sewer facilities or enter into a reimbursement agreement. If the Council does not approve paying the extra cost or a reimbursement agreement, the applicant shall install the sewage facilities as proposed and fund the entire cost. 17. The applicant or homeowner's association shall be responsible for cutting the grass (i.e., haying) on both the east side of Dorset Street and on the west side of Dorset Street east of streets "A" and "C" at least once a year in order to maintain the open space and scenic quality of this area of the City. If the homeowner's association is to be responsible for meeting this requirement, such requirement shall be included in the association "bylaws". A "Notice of Condition" addressing this condition shall be recorded in the land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 18. No building permits shall be issued for lots or multi -family buildings until the applicant submits to the City a letter from the Department of Historic Preservation which states that the development will not adversely impact historic or archaeologic resources. 19. The setbacks for the single-family requirements of Section 18.00 and 18.101 (i.e., 20 foot front yard, 10 foot side and 50 feet from the 80 foot r.o.w.). abutting a street or a r.o.w. designated be 20 feet, except those abutting the 80 the setback shall be 50 feet. lots shall conform to the of the zoning regulations yard, 30 foot rear yard, Any side or year yard for a future street shall foot r.o.w. in which case 20. The homeowner association "bylaws" shall include a provision which prohibits the conversion of garage space to any other use. 21. As provided in Section 605 of the subdivision regulations, if no action is taken to construct substantially the proposed subdivision within three years, said approval shall become null and void. 22. The retention ponds shall be maintained by the homeowner's association. The legal documents for the Association shall state this responsibility. The legal documents shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to permit issuance. 23. The final plat plans, including survey plats, shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 24. The applicant must find a use for the barn within 8 years of final plat approval. Until such time as a use is approved by the Planning Commission, the developer or homeowner's association shall maintain the barn. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Planning Commission prior to use of the barn. 25. Recreational vehicles and boats shall be stored in the over- flow parking areas on Street "C". 26. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Champlain Water District for the proposed water facilities prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 27. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall submit detailed plans of the proposed recreation path on the east side of Dorset Street to the City for approval. _ " Z l e,l ZII IW.A, / 1/l Chairman or Clerk South Burlington Planning Commission /A/ ate 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 23, 2004 \drb\sub\south village\masterplan.doc Plans received: August31, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #SD-04-01 Agenda #3 Meeting Date: September 28, 2004 Owner Applicant Paul Calkins South Village Communities, LLC P.O. Box 82 70 South Winooski Avenue Lyndonville, VT 05851 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Tax Parcel 1640-01840-F 928 Falls Road Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District Shelburne, VT 05482 224.18 acres Location Map X# '�s ~ irM - F ' •` y y .,. - 'I* fS fE t r _. S^ j4f .rf�+ Lj" • Subject Property: ML Project Description South Village Communities, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking Master Plan approval pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 334 residential unit traditional neighborhood design to include single-family, two-family, and multi -family dwelling units, 2) a 100-student educational facility, and 3) a 35-acre community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street. Master Plan approval for this property is required by Section 15.07(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as a prerequisite to the development of ten (10) or more residential units in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District (SEQ). The sketch plan of this project was reviewed by the Development Review Board on August 17, 2004 (minutes enclosed). The Development Review Board held a public hearing on the project on September 7, 2004 (minutes enclosed), but continued the hearing until September 28, 2004. a. Application i. This application consists of a Master Plan for a planned unit development consisting of 334 residential units; a 100-student educational facility, and a 35-acre community -supported farm, 1840 Spear Street. ii. The application is based upon a plan entitled "South Village — Master Plan — Spear Street — South Burlington, Vermont". iii. The owner of record of the property is Paul Calkins. iv. The application was deemed complete pursuant to 15.07(3) of the Land Development Regulations. b. Master Plan Application The following information was relied upon in making this decision, pursuant to Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations: a. An accurate Master Plan has been submitted. b. The title block is "South Village — South Burlington, Vermont — Spear Street and Allen Road." c. The plans were prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.; Looney Ricks Kiss; TND Engineering; LandWorks; and Applied Ecological Services, Inc., dated June 2004. d. A list of abutters was provided with the application and the names of abutters are included on sheet C2.1 of the plans. e. The Master Plan application and the plans referenced in (b) above include the following information: The combined area of the property subject to the Master Plan is 224.18 acres. 2 ii. The plan indicates that 71.6 acres (Phase 1: 25 acres; Phase 2: 18.7 acres; and Phase 3: 22 acres) are proposed for development and 152.58 acres are proposed for open space. Public amenities and facilities indicated on the plans include public streets, a public water system, a public sewer system; a public stormwater drainage system, and a public recreation path. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property is % (30% permitted). The maximum building coverage proposed for the entire property is % (15% permitted). v. The total number of residential dwelling units proposed by the applicant for the entire property is 334. This total includes the 267 units yielded through the base density in the Southeast Quadrant (1.2 units/acre), plus the 67 units yielded through the 25% density bonus for providing mixed -rate housing, pursuant to Section 13.14 of the Land Development Regulations. vi. The traffic study prepared by TN Engineering estimates a maximum PM peak hour VTE count of 345. vii. The sewer and water master plan is depicted on sheet C5.0 of the plans and has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Superintendent of South Burlington Water Department. viii. The roadway and sidewalk details, including the proposed hierarchy system, are outlined on sheets T4.1 thought T4.4 of the plans. The plans have been reviewed and by the Director of Public Works. ix. The existing conditions plans on sheet C2.1 of the plans depict 2' contour intervals. Other sheets depict 5' contour intervals, which are in compliance with this requirement. x. The boundary survey for the property is depicted on sheet S1.0 of the plans. xi. The proposed north and south street intersections have been staked in the field and have been designed to intersect existing driveways and/or undeveloped lots along the westerly side of Spear Street. xii. The waivers that the applicant is requesting are as follows: A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings - This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings - This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings — This waiver is requested to support the traffic calming efforts within each neighborhood area. The variable width is dependent on the amount of on street parking that could be expected within a particular portion of the project area. D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to 260'. The project will provide the connective route from Dorset Farms to the Allen Road/Spear Street intersection, but seeks to reduce the travel speeds through the introduction of narrower streets and tighter center line radii consistent with the goals of creating livable neighborhoods and attempting to reduce the amount of cut -through traffic in the project area. The reduction provides centerline radius consistent with a design speed of 25 mph. The goal of reducing commuter or cut -through traffic is supported by the presence of Barstow Road just to the south of the project area. E. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200, - The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a design speed of 25 mph within the neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the creation of livable neighborhoods. F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets from 150' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. G. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from 100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. H. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets from 200' to 150' - With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300' to 150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to 150' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. M K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. L. Minimum horizontal 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) - With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. C. Proposed Development Areas in the Master Plan Application The Master Plan application includes three (3) proposed development areas, as follows: Phase 1: Village Center 156 units and a 100-student school, southwesterly portion of property. Phase 2: Fields Edge 77 units, northwesterly portion of property. Phase 3: The Ridge 111 units, southeasterly portion of the property. The maximum number of units allowed on this property is 334. The plans submitted depict a total of 344 units, so at least ten (10) of the units shall be deleted from the plans. Pursuant to Section 15.18 (A) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions: 1. §15.18(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City does not currently have adequate water supply capacity to serve the proposed project, which is estimated to demand 115,000 gallons per day. However, the additional water supply storage that the City is in the process of constructing will be sufficient to supply the demand of the proposed project. The Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility currently has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project, which is estimated to generate 72,000 gallons per day. The City Wastewater Ordinance has specific provisions to allow large-scale project to obtain wastewater allocation permits during the approvals of specific phases of a Master Plan. Thus, the applicant will obtain water allocation and wastewater allocation approval at each of the three (3) proposed phases of this project. In addition, the applicant will obtain State permits in conjunction with the approval of the three (3) phases of this project. 2. §15.18(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Individual preliminary and final plat applications will be evaluated for conformance with this criterion and the provisions of Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations, Construction and Erosion Control. 3. §15.18(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRIB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by TND Engineering, dated April 8, 2004. The applicant also submitted a traffic impact study addendum, dated June 17, 2004. Both of these documents were submitted to Fuss and O'Neil for technical review. The specific traffic management strategies to control access and circulation for the proposed project will be conditioned and implemented at each of the three (3) phases of this Master Plan. The Director of Public Works has been extensively involved in the review of this Master Plan because of the significance of the public roadway waivers the applicant is requesting. He provided comments in two (2) memorandums dated November 21, 2002 and September 7, 2004 (attached). 4. §15.18(A)(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous Class III wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes, and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant, IJ Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations. In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp", has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact. However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above, located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area, by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 111 units in and adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the southerly portion of this wooded area. The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife impacts. The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (NRC) reviewed the proposed Master Plan on July 8, 2004 and July 22, 2004. The NRC was provided with copies of the applicant's wetland consultant's memorandum referenced above and the applicant's wildlife study referenced above. In addition, the NRC visited the site with the applicant, the applicant's wetland consultant, the applicant's wildlife biologist, the applicant's civil engineer, and other applicable parties. The NRC's recommended approval of the proposed Master Plan with the following conditions: 1. eliminate the southeasterly pod (Phase 3: The Ridge) for wildlife habitat protection considerations; 2. phase in east -west roadway based on City need and/or project need; 3. if the east -west road is constructed, the NRC recommends: a. wildlife -friendly design features b. wetland protection features 4. locate bike paths and pedestrian paths in a manner that minimizes wetland impacts; 5. if wetland experts disagree on the delineation at the DRB meeting, the NRC recommends that the DRB invoke technical review; 6. no pesticide application; 7. no mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers; 8. disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities; 9. no planting non-native species in wetlands or their buffers; 10. require a management plan for the agricultural area. The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a 7 challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are all in conflict with regard to Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan. It is staff's opinion that the 65 units and lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This would entail removing seven (7) multi -family buildings, eight (8) single-family lots, and the roadways, driveways, and parking areas serving them. This in turn will preserve a vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open space and wildlife corridor in this area. Staff feels that the 46 units and lots that comprise the lower portion of Phase 3 could remain. From a wildlife standpoint, it may be beneficial to replace some of the proposed buildings and lots in the lower portion of Phase 3 with the apartment buildings, as larger multi -family units could have less of an impact on wildlife movement. Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic management, and community planning perspective. 5. §15.18(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. The proposed Master Plan is visually compatible with the planned development patterns of the Southeast Quadrant. The buildings, building lots, and roads are clustered and concentrated towards the westerly portion of the property, creating significant open space areas in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The more than 152 acres of open space preserved through this Master Plan will maintain the open character of the area and will protect wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. As staff has suggested in this document, relocating the 65 buildings, building lots, and associated roads, sidewalks, and parking areas currently proposed for the upper portion of Phase 3 to other locations throughout the property will significantly increase the open space in the central portion of the property. This in turn will further the protection of wildlife habitat functions and natural resource on the property. The proposed Master Plan complies with the building height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. A total of 35 acres of the land within this scenic overlay district will be devoted to a community -supported farm. 6. §15.18(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will preserve over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous open space corridors with the properties to the south and north of the subject property. 7. §15.18(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the master plan to assess the proposed roadway layout. His comments are included in a memorandum dated September 2, 2004. The Fire Chief will review the location of hydrants and other details related to fire protection within each of the three (3) phases during the preliminary and final plat review of each phase. 8. §15.18(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The general layout of the roads, recreation paths, and utilities is adequate to facilitate the extension of such services to adjacent properties. 9. §15.18(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The overall road layout and hierarchy system are adequate and have been approved by the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief. The overall recreation path layout was reviewed by the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee and comments were provided in a memorandum from Tom Hubbard, the Director of the South Burlington Recreation Department, dated September 2, 2004. The landscaping and utility details will be reviewed during the subsequent preliminary and final plat stages of the individual phases. 10. §15.18(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). 9 The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the following objectives for the Southeast Quadrant, as outline in Chapter 8(G) of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: a. Preserve and enhance the open character, natural resources, and scenic views of the Southeast Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development. b. Maintain a rate, location, intensity, and timing of future development in the Southeast Quadrant that is in accord with the physical characteristics of the land and the availability of municipal services and facilities, and which is consistent with the City's population growth objectives and land use recommendations. c. Promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of affordable housing, while preserving the special character of the Southeast Quadrant. Pursuant to Section 15.18 (B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Master Plans shall comply with the following standards and conditions: 1. §15.18(B)(1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development. As discussed above, in response to the criteria outlined in Sections15.18 (A)(4) and 15.18(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed Master Plan includes extensive open space and natural resource protection. The plan incorporates over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The surface area and location of this open space will be integral to protecting important natural resources, including wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife. However, it is staff's opinion that the 65 buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3 of the master plans should be removed to increase the open space in the central portion of this property, thus increasing wildlife protection. The Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District overlaps a large portion of the subject property. Sheet C-2.4 of the Master Plan depicts this scenic overlay district and indicates the maximum building height allowed within this scenic overlay district, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. The proposed buildings conform to the height restrictions for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. At the preliminary and final plat review stages of each of the three (3) phases, the maximum building height of each lot shall be indicated on the plans. 2. §15.18(B)(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned development at the overall base densities provided in these Regulations. 10 The proposed buildings, building lots, streets, and other structures have been designed to create the open space areas discussed above, in response to Section 15.18(B)(1) of the Land Development Regulations. 3. §15.18(B)(3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. The subject property has a major Class II wetland extending from the northerly to the southerly boundaries. The presence of this wetland was a major factor in the design of the proposed master plan. All of the proposed buildings and building envelopes avoid encroaching into this Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer. The proposed roadway layout will result in encroachment into the westerly finger of the Class II wetland and its associated 50' wide buffer in two (2) locations. In addition, there are numerous Class II I wetland and wetland buffer encroachments by buildings, building envelopes, and roadways. The wetland impacts of the proposed master plan are minimal relative to the surface area of wetlands on the subject property. The applicant's wetland consultant, Art Gilman, submitted a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations. In addition to wetland constraints, there are significant wildlife habitat impact concerns on the subject property. The large swath of wetland area covering the property will serve as a significant open space corridor to facilitate wildlife habitat and movement. The large wooded area along the easterly property boundary, known as the "Great Swamp", has been identified as one of the most significant natural areas in South Burlington. Due to these wildlife concerns, the applicant has not proposed any buildings or building envelopes in this area, thus leaving the area intact. However, there is another wooded area to the west of the larger one referenced above, located in between the two (2) fingers of the large Class II wetland. This "ridge" area, by virtue of its location between the "Great Swamp" and five -acre residentially -zoned areas and associated woodland areas to the south in Shelburne, also contains features that make it suitable as wildlife habitat. The applicant has proposed 111 units in and adjacent to this wooded area, making up Phase 3: The Ridge. In addition, the east -west roadway connecting Spear Street to Midland Avenue is proposed to cross through the southerly portion of this wooded area. The applicant's certified wildlife biologist, Dave Capen, submitted a wildlife study dated June 2004, addressing the project's wildlife impacts. The City has identified housing, the connection of neighborhoods, and wildlife protection as three (3) major priorities in the development of South Burlington. There is a challenge in balancing these priorities, as they are all in conflict with regard to Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan. It is staff's opinion that the 65 units and lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3 should be displaced elsewhere within the project. This would entail removing seven (7) multi -family buildings, eight (8) single-family lots, and the roadways, driveways, and parking areas serving them. This in turn will preserve a vast majority of the wooded area and protect the integrity and functionality of the open space and wildlife corridor in this area. Staff feels that the 46 units and lots that comprise the lower portion of Phase 3 could remain. From a wildlife standpoint, it may be beneficial to replace some of the proposed buildings and lots in the lower portion of Phase 3 with the apartment buildings, as larger multi -family units could have less of an impact on wildlife movement. Staff feels very strongly that the east -west roadway connecting the proposed project to Midland Avenue must be constructed. Dorset Farms was permitted with the explicit understanding that Midland Avenue would be connected to Allen Road. In addition, the proposed project coupled with Dorset Farms will create a significant number of housing units in this area, and it is very important that they are connected from a safety, traffic management, and community planning perspective. 4. §15.18(B)(4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed and located to maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces on adjacent properties. The layout proposed through this Master Plan will create over 152 acres of dedicated open space, mainly in the central and easterly portions of the subject property. The location of this open space will create contiguous space corridors with the properties to the south and north of the subject property. 5. §15.18(B)(5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ is encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on prime agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure. There are no existing agricultural operations on the subject property. However, the Master Plan includes a 35-acre community -supported farm, which will reinstate active agricultural operations into the area. 6. §15.18(B)(6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. The applicant shall create an open space management plan for the subject property. This plan should include the management strategy for the wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. In addition, the applicant shall create a management plan for the proposed community -supported agricultural area. 7. §15.18(B)(7) In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. 12 The Proposed Master Plan is in compliance with the South Burlington Official Map, last revised February 14, 2004. Other Armlicable Criteria 1. § 9.08(B) In connection with approval of a PUD, the Development Review Board may allow development activities in addition to those authorized under Section 9.06(B) to occur in restricted areas or allow residential lots or portions of residential lots to be located in restricted areas provided the Development Review Board determines that such development activities are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District. The subject property has a number of "restricted areas" on it. These "restricted areas" were established to protect land for one (1) of the following reasons: to facilitate planned roadways; to protect scenic views; or to protect wetland and other natural resources. The proposed Master Plan does have buildings and building lots within these "restricted areas". Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 all have development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to facilitate planned roadways. The applicant has proposed a roadway network through the property that connects Midland Avenue to Spear Street, in addition to providing a means of access to the property to the north. Thus, the "restricted areas", designed to facilitate planned roadways, as labeled on the "Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map", are no longer necessary. Phase 1 and Phase 2 have development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect scenic views. Most of this "restricted area" overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District. The applicant is following the building height requirements for the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District, as outlined in Section 10.03(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Thus, development in the "restricted area" that overlaps the Spear Street — Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay District is warranted. In addition, the application is proposing development in the "restricted area" along Spear Street that is designated for a scenic view corridor. This development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District, as development in this "restricted area" allows the applicant to cluster more of the units towards the westerly portion of the property, away from the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that comprise the control and easterly portions of the property. Phase 3 of the proposed Master Plan has development proposed in a "restricted area" designated to protect natural resources. These buildings and building lots are located in an area that the City believes is utilized as a significant wildlife corridor, and therefore should be protected from development. Thus, development in this "restricted area" is not warranted, as it is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. The proposed buildings and building lots that fall within this "restricted area" must be displaced elsewhere on the property. 13 DRAFT DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Development Review Board approves Master Plan application #MP-04-01 of South Villages Communities, LLC for 334 residential units, a 100-student school, and a 35-acre community -supported farm. Pursuant to §15.07(D)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 is hereby approved with conditions. A. Decision with Respect to Master Plan Umbrella Criteria: The Development Review Board approves the following Master Plan "umbrella criteria" pursuant to §15.07(D)(3) of the Land Development Regulations: a. Overall density and number of residential dwelling units: A maximum number of 334 residential dwelling units are approved for a total density of 1.5 units/acre. The base density in the Southeast Quadrant of 1.2 units/acre yields a total of 223 units. The 25% density bonus for providing mixed -rate housing, as determined by Section 13.14 of the Land development Regulations, accounts for the additional 67 units. b. Building and impervious coverage: A total building coverage of % and a total impervious coverage of % are approved for the master plan. These are overall limits for the entire South Village property subject to this approval. Within the individual development phases, as described and approved in this decision, these overall limits may be exceeded provided the applicable Southeast Quadrant zoning district limitations of fifteen percent (15%) for buildings and thirty percent (30%) overall are met. c. Location, layout, capacity and number of collector roadways: The collector roadway system is approved as shown on the Master Plan. d. Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved Mater Plan application: All areas not approved as development areas in this Master Plan are to be utilized exclusively for open space use. e. Maximum number of vehicle trip ends — A maximum of 345 PM peak hour trip ends from all approved residential and non-residential uses is approved for the South Village property. B. Decision with Respect to Individual Development Areas —Proposed as Part of this Master Plan Application: (1) Phase 1: Village Center: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is approved as a development area. (2) Phase 2: Fields Edge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application, is approved as a development area. (3) Phase 3: The Ridge: This phase of the master plan, as proposed through this application is only partially approved as a development area. The 65 H 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 lot that comprise the lower portion of this phase are approved, as proposed through this application. CONDITIONS The Development Review Board finds and concludes that the following conditions are necessary for the Master Plan application to meet the City's requirements and standards for approval: 1. Pursuant to Sections 15.07(D)(2) and 15.07(D)(4) of the Land Development Regulation, the Development Review Board requires each of the three (3) phases included in this Master Plan to obtain separate preliminary plat approval and final plat approval in accordance with Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations. 2. Any application for amendment of the Master Plan or preliminary plat plan that deviates from the Master Plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended Master Plan: a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the Master Plan; b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the Master Plan; c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the Master Plan; d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved Master Plan application; e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for total buildout of the property subject to the Master Plan. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(5) of the Land Development Regulations the following minor land development activities will not require Development Review Board approval and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a zoning permit: a) The addition of decks to dwelling units; b) The addition of porches to dwelling units; c) The addition of patios (these do not need a zoning permit either); d) The enclosure of decks; e) The addition of accessory structures, pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Land Development Regulations; f) Other minor land development activities at the discretion of the Administrative Officer. 4. Pursuant to Section15.18 (B)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit a plan for the management and maintenance of the dedicated open spaces created through this Master Plan. The management and maintenance plans shall be 15 submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning, prior to recording of the Master Plan. 5. The Master Plan shall be revised to show the following changes. Four (4) copies of the approved revised plat plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording: a) The plans shall be revised to remove the 65 buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of Phase 3, and displace them elsewhere in the project if the applicant desires. b) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee, as outlined in the memorandum from Tom Hubbard, dated September 2, 2004. 6. The roadways, sidewalks, and recreation paths comprising this Master Plan can be constructed in conjunction with each of the three (3) phases. The roadway connection to Midland Drive shall, at the latest, be constructed in conjunction with Phase 3 of the master plan. 7. The Development Review Board approves the following waivers from the Land Development Regulations: A. Minimum pavement width for Public Collector streets from 30' to 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts and 20' at wetland crossings. B. Minimum pavement width for Public Local streets from 28' to 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking, and 18' at wetland crossings. C. Minimum pavement width for Private Local streets from 26' with parking on one side and 20' without parking 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or low density and 18' at wetland crossings. D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Collector streets from 500' to 260'. D. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local streets from 300' to 200'. E. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Collector streets from 150' to 50'. F. Minimum tangent length between curves for Public Local streets from 100'. G. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for Public Local streets from 200' to 150'. H. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Collector streets from 300' to 150'. I. Minimum vertical sight distance for Public Local Streets from 200' to 150'. J. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Collector streets from 500 to 275'. K. Minimum horizontal sight distance for Public Local Streets from 300 to 275'. 8. Any future requests for waivers will be reviewed in conjunction with the site -specific preliminary or final plat reviews for individual development areas. 16 9. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 10. The Master Plan (sheets S1.0 and S1.1) shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording of the Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plats in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the Director of Planning & Zoning. Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board continue Master Plan application #SD-04-01. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 17