Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 10 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear StreetCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 23, 2004 \sub\south_village\preliminary_phasel.doc Plans received: July 16, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-04-55 Agenda #4 Meeting Date: September 28, 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 Ma- r k-w subject Property ._• aePJ1. _. ._., j, i P L m , ., ,., CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 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 a public hearing on the project on September 7, 2004, but continued the hearing until September 28, 2004. 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 Burlington 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 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 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 I I I 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\preliminary phase1 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\preliminaryphase1 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 phase1 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc it makes it difficult to comply with this requirement. Thus, staff feels the proposed location of the parking lot is adequate. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING TON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south villaae\r)reliminary ohasel.doc It is not necessary for the Development Review Board to require any addition easements for this project (Phase 1 of the Master Plan). 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 Buffington 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGION 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1.doc 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. 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 Buffington 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 doc 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: 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 111 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 Burlington 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, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF 1PEANNE04G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 24, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05403 Re: South Village Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m, at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, 0 \y Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNII*IG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 22, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Minutes Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the September 7, 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 PLANN01G & ZONU",JG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 14, 2004 David Scheuer, President Retrovest 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 Re: Minutes Dear Mr. Scheuer: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the August 17, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �jj Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTITLED "SOUTH VILLAGE, ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN' PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02.01047.04). THE RESTRICTED AREA ILLUSTRATED ON THIS PLAN WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS FIGURE IS SIMILAR TO SHEET C2.3 OF THE SOUTH VILLAGE APPLICATION PACKAGE DATED JUNE, 2004. GOPYRIGNI LIM THEVH REfitO1P,NC A1I RIGHTSTSRESERVED NO PORTION OF THIS DRAWING MAY RE COPIED WfRIg11PRIDRWRIfIFM PHd69O16THEYE1iiHd€ff1QIP.NC GRAPHIC SCALE —1 0pp tmrml 1 IDeL = 2W ft. N W E APPROXIMATE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA OF PHASES I, II & III = 65.7 ACRES (+/-) APPROXIMATE PHASE I, II & III DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN RESTRICTED AREA = 27.8ACRES (+/-) APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF PHASE I, II & III DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN RESTRICTED AREA = 42% ' RED HATCH INDICATES RESTRICTED AREAS RESTRICTED AREA PLAN DI CHECK APPRC DATEATE'. f SCALE The Verterre Group, Inc. v.l 414 Rl—wit Highway- Stite 200 I cold miff, VemroTa 054"-jmzfiS4-ltm FI it �r• (" i i i I� j� • '�' 4 pp '1 SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A DIGITAL IMAGE OF THE BURLINGTON, VERMONT U.S.G.S. MAP OBTAINED UTILIZING TERRAIN NAVIGATOR SOFTWARE FROM MAPTECH, INC. RIDGES HAVE BEEN `t- - - ' l• I HATCHED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. THE VERTERRf (3iWP,IxNo ALL RIGHTS RESERVED vORnOx OF n113 DRAWNG MAx BECWx:DV•MO1TPfbp2VebDBIPHMSSId CFMEVERIHME GItIIP,NC - _...__y,n-:" - •�.� I J 116 • �,� l r O� GRAPHIC SCALE` ` } sm sop +aoo spW 1 99pD :Sap 0. �! RIDGELINE MAP M� DRJ!H CHECI®BT RH PROVED DATE 9ffm SCALE App— T•=SW The Verterre Group, Inc w,w.• 4URooseveBHig—W-sm.?w Colchester, I"—* 9511, • ba ss.-seep FI[.IIRF 2 11 � } s t q �•. ' -tom „ , 4 . M� � � 6 A p � ,,�i� !a^� � �� ( t A � Yy � rY• 3 .• �f' •-7 �nn.n 1� '1 �1. ;.y G� a �+ . n n_ � ^ O pia �'�' n n 1S 4� ri �pn -J ,.�i •�°' .,fit i � �� SOURCE: THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTITLED "SOUTH VILLAGE, ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #0201047.04). RIDGES HAVE BEEN HATCHED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. GRAPHIC SCALE 2a0 o 200 Sao ea0 ON -SITE PROMINENT RIDGELINE MAP The Verterre Group, Inc." 4u RooseveK HxX war - StiW zoo Coldwst-, V— t osus - (M3) 659-BM a y 3y 1 7 t. k�{ OLrd iv Al et . .�`�.� ...•....++�� 1 ,n q ,, it 3:" A '30c1' �1� 7, ') -�, JJ� ^�`)l ,ram n _77 x. IR :'JaRgi!F Q - 1'f� •ii��'> A z ` f •"� ja' nA 9�aa)r9r s1 � {�.1 ti•`7j 5 ... �. �� Y.7 .�: .n �� eJ •''�°kj'rls .&i,�. il SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN ENTIT ED "SOUTH VILLAGE, ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02.01047.04). THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ILLUSTRATED BY THE RED ARROW ON THIS MAP WAS OBTAINED FROM MAP #9 OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON OPEN SPACE STRATEGY PREPARED BY T. J. BOYLE AND ASSOCIATES DATED APRIL, 2002 H W E ' RED ARROW INDICATES WILDLIFE CORRIDOR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MAP DRA" CHECKE GRAPHIC SCALE "oo Boo AP R DATE Im ]00 SCALE. The Verterre Group, Inc." vea l teem n. 414 aoo e t Highway - iwlte 200 �tl�. y,.� 05..6 - 1902) 651-»aa3 FK a p �..H.�'• A> J m Is- PY r., h n� r lA a- WETLAND rs r la ^r ,ra n'. "kl y q DISTURBAf ICF y a � 36- P�. { ti - T�. nQ •i ^ j'a WETLAND DISTURBANCE STREAM CROSSING WITH ' POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN IMPACT WETLAND CROSSING SOURCE THE BASEMAP FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS A SCANNED IMAGE OF A PLAN EMTFfLED "SOUTH VILLAGE, ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN" PREPARED BY LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR THE RETROVEST COMPANIES DATED MAY 10, 2004 (PROJECT #02 01047.04). cmvuHA1>. m Tovalic PE �GVGPnMY nPnPTlGetx THIS GRAWMG MAV BE CGPIFG VNIHGUTPgIOt W4REM P9ir651O16ME�•FFIERHE(3tU1P,NC GRAPHIC SCALE am a 10o m / 40 em1 1 6ncp = mo 1l. e�rje P STREAM CROSSING x W E STREAM CROSSING & WETLAND DISTURBANCE MAP DRAI CHEI APPI )ATI SCA The Verterre Group, Inc.' r 414 RoowW* Hk$-W -Sint. 200 Culcheaff, V-9 054" - (20Z 654-9653 F a II °• The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S June 29, 2004 Brian Robertson, Associate Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: SOUTH VILLAGE Dear Brian: For our meeting with the Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, July 8, 2004, please find copies of the following along with duplicates for committee members. - 24 x 36 of Drawing #C4.0 entitled Wetland Plan with Points - South Village - 11 x 17 of same - Memorandum from Art Gilman of William D. Countryman addressing the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations regarding South Village Wetlands. - South Village Wildlife Assessment from David E. Capen, Ph.D, Certified Wildlife Biologist We will meet you and the committee members at the site at 6pm on that date and proceed afterwards to the City of South Burlington's offices. Art Gilman, David Capen, David Marshall from Civil Engineering, myself and David Scheuer will be there. I will also have on site, the Wetland Plan on foam board and any other plans you deem necessary. If you require any further information, please let me know. �Sincerely, Michelle Holgate� 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com y� 1 I I ' I � 1 1' l '� _ •___- 11 1 II 1\� ci \ Of 1 .ram[^ Tom `I I I I IGRAPHIC SCALE f (w �200 I — 1 in•h f< _ PLANS PREPARED HY: AL ' A 1 I CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 485 SHRBURNE, Vf 05482 1 6@-0&iZ M H02-D =ll wa0.' w.w.cra,tcvn 1 _ AWY D1 �- ----- GSM 1 APPLICANT: 1 SOUTH VILLAGE 1 COMMUNITIES, LLC. 1 IPROJECT CONSULTANTS: ' LAND USE PLANNERIARCHITECT 1 LOONEY RICKS KISS i. • I NASHVILLE. IN �:. . CIVIL ENGINEER 1 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Jn . 1 SHELBURNE, VT - 3. •..::..::•:.• TRAFFIC ENGINEER - TND ENGINEERING 1 OSSIPEE, NH 1 • • • - -.. I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LAND -WORKS MIDDLEBURY, VT 1 1 ........PROJECT TITLE: tm SOUTH VILLAGEI � S o a 1 6 8 a r 1 1�., o a. V• r s o SPEAR STREET AND ALLEN ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON,VT LOCATION MAP D�RB 4ffiC® 1RVISIDN WETLAND PLAN WITH POINTS DATL DR.�INC NUY98Y JUNE, 2004 1' - 200' C4.0 01243 William A Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning 868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663 Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422 wdcenv@to,gether.net MEMORANDUM To: Dave Marshall, PE From: Art Gilman, Errol Briggs Date: 4 June 2004 Re: South Village Wetlands, for City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations Under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted 12 May 2003, a project that will impact wetlands must be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee. Submittals to the Committee include 1) a wetland delineation of the entire property and 2) a response to criteria in Section 12.02 E of the Regulations. 1) We have reviewed the map of the delineations and believe that it is accurate. Following initial concerns that our 2001 delineations missed some areas, we re -delineated certain areas, and have reviewed the delineations in the field with personnel from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Vermont Wetlands Office, and with Dori Barton of Arrowwood Environmental. We believe that that there is now general concurrence that the wetland boundaries are accurately portrayed. 2) For response to Section 1202.E (Standards for Wetlands Protection), each standard is given below with our response: (1) Consistent with the purposes of the Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. The South Village project has been laid out with avoidance of wetlands in mind, and specifically avoids the large central wetland and the forested swamp on the eastern property boundary. The requirements of the City to have a through road, however, necessitates crossing the major wetlands in two locations. Encroachment into the 50' buffer zones designated under the Vermont Wetland Rules has also been minimized. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in cotjunction 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 An application for a Conditional Use Determination will be submitted to the DEC. (3) Encroachment into Class H 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 encroachments) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store floodwaters adequately; The flood storage capacity of the wetlands on this property is significant and is primarily related to the large central wetland. The capacity of the small Class III wetlands is not significant individually, nor, in our estimation, in the aggregate - being altogether much less than the large central wetland. Encroachment into this wetland is limited to crossings; these will be adequately culverted to avoid impounding waters; furthermore, the various stormwater controls will serve to slow the flow of water into the large wetland. (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards. It is our understanding that all stormwater control measures will be undertaken outside of existing wetlands, i.e., the creation of Stormwater Treatment Trains. These are intended to filter out sediments, sequester any toxicants or pathogens, and uptake nutrients. Therefore, there will be no diminution of capacity of the wetlands to cleanse waters, which is a recognized function of these wetlands. We observed, and will note for the record, that following heavy rains, the stream through the wetlands runs cloudy, even though the entire area is fully vegetated - an indication of natural erosion of the clay soils. (c) The impact of the encroachments) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment and/or other mitigation measures. The small Class Three wetlands were found to be significant primarily for water quality maintenance, and as noted above, we believe the proposed stormwater treatment, which is quite innovative, will suffice to minimize or offset any impact to this function. The large, contiguous Class Two wetland was found to be significant for numerous functions and values, which we discuss individually here: 1) Stormwater storage - the storage capacity of the wetland will not be diminished 2) Water quality through trapping of sediments, toxicants, and pathogens - the capacity of the wetland will not be significantly diminished, and with the stormwater treatment in place, there should be little or no additional input 3) Water quality through uptake of nutrients - we would note that the main wetland is dominated by lake sedge which is very well suited to uptake of nutrients; there should be no impact 4) Fisheries - we do not believe the wetland is significant for fisheries although there may be minnows in the manmade pond; the stream channel is ephemeral and only suitable during a portion of the year. We believe there would be no impact to this function 5) Hydrophytic vegetation - the forested swamp along the eastern edge of the property is likely a significant area for hydrophytic vegetation as a community, but no development is proposed within it or within 50' of it. Otherwise, we have not identified any significant hydrophytic vegetation, but have indicated that we will revisit one locale later this summer to determine if a species of bedstraw (Galium) observed there is a rare species (it was unidentifiable when observed in 2003). If so, then we would advise Retrovest that a slight project redesign should be undertaken to avoid the location. 6) Wildlife - we refer you to the studies of Dr. Dave Capen in regard to wetland -dependent wildlife. 7) Recreation - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function 8) Education - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function 9) Erosion control - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function SOUTH VILLAGE WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT Prepared by David E. Capen, Ph.D. Certified Wildlife Biologist Research Professor, University of Vermont June 2004 Introduction This report provides a record of field studies conducted to document wildlife occurrence on the proposed South Village project site in South Burlington, Vermont. The specific purpose of this study was to survey the site frequently during winter, spring, and summer months, 2002, to document use by wildlife and to assess habitat for wildlife. In winter, observations focused on detecting and identifying tracks left by mammals. In spring and summer, surveys featured birds. Occasional visits throughout 2003 and 2004 have supplemented the initial surveys. South Village The Retrovest Companies plan to build a series of innovative neighborhoods in South Burlington, Vermont, using design concepts reflecting historic Vermont settlement patterns. Known as South Village, the new community will be situated on a 227-acre propertv on the east side of Spear Street at Allen Road. Currently, the land includes a substantial acreage of followed agricultural farm fields dominated by non-native agronomic grasses and forbs, and areas that are being reinvaded by shrubs and saplings; a large central wetland area; mixed forests and pine plantations; and a forested wetland. Except for the forested wetland (an unusual example of a Calcareous Red Maple -Tamarack Swamp that also supports a number of species characteristic of acidic wetlands) the land supports a typical diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat found in many areas of South Burlington and surrounding towns. Wildlife Surveys Methods Field surveys were conducted systematically from January -July 2002 to document use of the South Village property by mammals and birds. Surveys for mammals consisted of locating and identifying tracks in snow. Tracking was conducted during 13 visits from 18 January to 2 April by Tina Scharf (M.S. Wildlife Biology, Univ. of Vermont). The winter of 2002 was not one with abundant snow, but nevertheless 11 surveys were conducted on snow. Bare -ground surveys were done on two occasions to find other animal sign, such as scats and runways. Most surveying was done by following north -south and east -west transect lines. Animal tracks also were followed on occasion to determine movement patterns, with a special interest in determining if and where animals moved onto and off the property. Surveys for bird species were conducted primarily in late spring and early summer, when breeding birds are most conspicuous, although sightings also were recorded in winter and early spring while surveying for mammals. The majority of bird species were found on five trips to the property between 24 May and 15 June. Tina Scharf also conducted survey for birds, accompanied on one day by Ernest Buford, a local expert in bird identification. Additional visits to the site to observe wildlife have been made (D. Capen) in April 2003, June 2003, December 2003, and April 2004. Results —Mammal surveys Tracks were detected for 13 species of wild mammals on the 13 days when tracking surveys were conducted (Table 1). The Eastern cottontail was the most consistently abundant mammal, and was recorded on all 13 surveys. Red fox tracks also were recorded during all surveys. Coyote tracks were seen on 12 of the 13 survey dates. For these three species, it was common to note that three or more individuals had left tracks in the snow. Other predatory species detected included long-tailed weasel, ermine, and bobcat. The ermine and bobcat were detected only once, but the long- tailed weasel had been active prior to four survey dates. White-tailed deer tracks were not found regularly throughout the winter, but their tracks were common and widespread in late winter and early spring, when weather was uncharacteristically mild and snow cover was inconsistent. There is evidence from runways, scats, and buck antler rubs that deer occupy the property most of the year. Winter food may be lacking, however, because there is very little woody understory in the forest. There also was evidence --bark stripping on small red maple trees --that moose have been present in the past, and one set of fresh moose tracks was observed in late spring. Small mammals, including Eastern cottontails, meadow voles, white-footed mice, gray squirrels, red squirrels, eastern chipmunks, moles, and shrews, appear to be plentiful on the site, even though some of these species were not represented by track counts. These species obviously support the small and mid -sized predators mentioned above. The property is part of the home ranges of at least two red foxes and perhaps three coyotes. It was common to see their tracks throughout the property, sometimes even quite close to —but never crossing-- Spear Street. Beds of two coyotes were found in the northeastern corner, but no dens were found. One or two bobcats had visited the property on one survey day. No place looks like a characteristic den site for bobcats within the South Village property, so it is assumed that the area is a part of a bobcat's extended territory. A raccoon was seen during spring bird surveying, but no tracks were found in the winter. No sign was found of skunks, flying squirrels, woodland or meadow jumping mice, or woodchucks; but it is likely that they do exist on the property. Bats are not present in the winter, but probably could be found in the summer. Table 1. Results of tracking surveys for mammals on South Village property, 2002. Numbers indicate evidence of at least that many animals. Species Survey Dates 18-Jan 21-Jan 25-Jan 28-Jan 5-Feb 9-Feb 12-Feb 15-Feb 18-Feb 28-Feb 19-Mar 21-Mar 2-Apr Masked shrew 3 Eastern cottontail 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Eastern chipmunk 1 Gray squirrel 3 3 1 1 Red squirrel 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 White-footed mouse 1 1 1 1 Meadow vole 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 Coyote 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 Red fox 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 Long-tailed weasel 3 1 2 2 Ermine 1 Bobcat 2 White-tailed deer 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 House cat 1 1 1 Results —Bird Survevs Fifty-seven species of birds were observed during observation periods that ran from January through July 2002 (Table 2). Observations during winter, however, were incidental to searching for mammal tracks. Sixteen species seen or heard during winter included three species —mallards, red -winged blackbirds, and American robin —that were present because of the mild winter. The remaining 13 bird species would be expected to occur on the site throughout the year. During the breeding season, May -July, 54 species were detected on the site. Most of these are birds that might be found nesting in one of the habitat types on the South Village property. Exceptions are alder flycatcher, rusty blackbird, white -throated sparrow, and purple finch, species that normally nest farther north, or at higher elevations, and were likely seen while on migration. Several other species require large trees or dense forest for nesting and probably find nest sites in the mature forest east of the boundary of South Village property. These species include red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, great - crested flycatcher, scarlet tanager, and ovenbird. Other woodland species include Eastern wood -pewee, great -crested flycatcher, nor -them flicker, ruby -throated hummingbird, American crow, blue jay, black -capped chickadee, tufted titmouse, white - breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, veery, wood thrush, and Eastern towhee. Grassland species included field sparrow, song sparrow, savannah sparrow, brown - headed cowbird, eastern meadowlark, killdeer, and bobolink. Shrubby habitat is preferred by species such as yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, brown thrasher, northern cardinal, and chipping sparrow. Several species were present because of wetland habitats.- willow flycatcher, red -winged blackbird, common grackle, swamp sparrow, and mallard. The wetland areas, in combination with abandoned pastures attracted two northern harriers, which were seen on 13 June, 2002, but not on subsequent visits to the site_ In April 2003, Canada geese and an American bittern were observed on or near the small pond on the property. Geese were observed again in 2004, but the bittern was not observed again, either in June 2003 or April 2004. In mid -April, 2003 and 2004, visits to the site were made at dusk to document use of the shrubby fields by American woodcock. At least two different male woodcock were observed in their courtship flights during these visits. 'able 2. Birds observed during winter, spring, and summer, 2002, on South Village property. -Species------------------ --------- --------------- Winter/Spring__-_______-_ Spring/Summer - - - - ------------ Mallard X X Red-tailed hawk X X American kestrel x Ruffed grouse X X Wild turkey X X Killdeer X Mourning dove X X Barred owl X Northern harrier X Black -billed cuckoo X Pileated woodpecker Northern flicker X Ruby -throated hummingbird X Great -crested flycatcher x Eastern wood -pewee X Eastern kingbird X Willow flycatcher X Tree swallow X Alder flycatcher X Bam swallow American crow Blue jay Black -capped chickadee Tufted titmouse White -breasted nuthatch Brown creeper House wren Veery Scarlet tanager Wood thrush American robin Gray catbird Brown thrasher Cedar waxwing Red -eyed vireo Yellow warbler Common yellowthroat Ovenbird Northern cardinal Chipping sparrow Eastern towhee Field sparrow Savannah sparrow Song sparrow Swamp sparrow Bobolink White -throated sparrow Red -winged blackbird Eastern meadowlark Rusty blackbird Common grackle Brown -headed cowbird Baltimore oriole X X X European starling X Purple finch X American goldfinch X House sparrow X X Discussion The South Village property offers a mix of habitat types for wildlife, despite the detrimental effects of recent agriculture practices on the structure of natural communities. The acreage is a diverse mix of wetlands, shrubs, and forest stands of different ages and species. It is clearly a mix of communities in transition. What were pastures only 10-15 years ago have now succeeded to brush, and could become forested in another 15 years. The white pine forest on the property appears to have become established naturally during a rest from grazing or as a result of low -density grazing. The virtual absence of natural understory vegetation in the white pines suggests that grazing may have occurred as pines became established on the site or, alternatively, that soil compaction from previous grazing has prevented a dense understory of native species from becoming established and has favored a number of invasive exotic species. A diversity of mammals and birds was documented on the South Village property. None of the species detected was a surprise, because all are common in habitats of this type in suburban areas of the Champlain Valley. No species found is listed as Endangered or Threatened in Vermont; indeed, all but the rusty blackbird are common. The Natural Heritage database maintained by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife shows that the upland sandpiper, a Threatened species, was found on or near this property about a decade ago. This is an easily observed species and one that many bird watchers seek in the proper habitat, yet there have been no recent reports. The grasslands on the South Village property are no longer sparse enough to attract the Upland Sandpiper. When this species used this site, fields were still being grazed by cattle, which produced a sparse, patchy condition preferred by this bird. The South Village property remains as one of the most substantial parcels of undeveloped land in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington. But, these acres have rapidly become isolated from some of the other undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. The west boundary of South Village abuts busy Spear Street and increasingly dense suburban develop west of Spear Street. It is unlikely that any significant movements of mammals to and from the property occur to the west. To the north, the western half of the boundary is adjacent to some small fallow fields that mix with residential properties. But, the eastern boundary blends into a large, 100+ acres, patch of mature forest that also forms most of the eastern boundary of the property and likely serves as a reservoir for many of the wildlife species detected on the South Village property. North of this forested area, however, is now a large golf course and surrounding residential development, so wildlife movements in this direction are quite limited. The southern boundary of South Village abuts some fallow fields, residential property, and wetlands along the Spear Street side of the property. This open land extends for about 2500 feet before intersecting Barstow Road. On the eastern portion of the south boundary, large, residential lots predominate. At the southeast comer of South Village, one finds a funnel-like feature of vegetation types where wetlands, open fields, and woodlands converge. This comer, until recently, likely was the point of greatest ingress to the property for those wildlife species that have large home ranges and might disperse from extensive areas of undeveloped land to the east of Dorset Street. However, the area of connecting habitat between South Village and areas east of Dorset Street, which includes the Shelburne Pond natural area, has been thoroughly dissected by an extensive housing development, Dorset Farms. Thus, the South Village property, and the adjacent forest to the east have been progressively isolated from surrounding areas that formerly shared their undeveloped character. This area is not yet an "island" of habitat for wildlife, but roads and housing developments have almost surrounded the property and usurped travel corridors for wildlife. Scattered patches of forest and open fields, interspersed with houses and driveways, still exist south and southeast of the South Village property, but even these areas are bounded by roads with increasingly heavy flows of traffic. Impact of South Village Development on Wildlife Habitat South Village proposes to establish more than 300 housing units, yet 55% of the 227- acre property will remain in a natural state or as part of a small, working farm. Indeed, the plan for ecological restoration should assure improvement of the condition of all habitat types; except perhaps the amount of shn island; which is temporary stage in the transition of fields to forest. Most importantly, the forests and wetlands on the eastern portion of the property will be left largely undeveloped, but will be restored to a more natural condition. The only housing proposed for this section of the property is in the low quality (i.e., low diversity of plants species and habitat structure) white pine forest, adjacent to existing development of Dorset Farms. Certainly, South Village will be busy with people and their activities, but most wildlife species found today on this property have already adapted to humans and their activities, and are quite common in suburban areas. One of the unique aspects of the South Village proposal is the plan for ecological restoration of natural communities on undeveloped parts of the property. The restoration plan is being developed by Applied Ecological Services (AES), a company that is widely respected for such work. The plan is described below. The ecological restoration program for South Village seeks to encourage plant communities, dominated by native plant species, that resemble the structure and spatial patterns of natural communities found on this land before recent agricultural uses. The term restoration is used to mean that the existing vegetation systems will be enhanced through active management or that existing degraded vegetation will be completely replaced with native plant species. Other goals are to stabilize soils, hold nutrients on the land, and manage stormwater runoff from the existing site, and future development as an important asset and resource. These measures can enhance the quality of habitat for wildlife, even though the extent of wildlife habitat will be reduced. The restoration plan is comprised of two periods. The remedial period involves the major tasks such as brushing buckthorn from the forests, replanting native grasslands, conducting reforestation, and installing the Stormwater Treatment Train system. This period usually lasts 3-5 years. The maintenance phase of this program includes perpetual tasks done annually to maintain and enhance the ecological systems. Such activities might include prescribed burning and noxious weed management. The conceptual restoration plan was developed from the natural resources assessment, while at the same time integrating the development intent, with its recreation and open - space component, and the Stormwater Treatment Train for stormwater management. An outline of major restoration tasks is as follows: Forests and Savannas A diverse understory vegetation will be restored in the forests. This will be done by seeding, plugging, brushing, and prescribed burning. Invasive shrubs and saplings of buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, boxelder, and other noxious or invasive plant species will be removed, allowing ample light to the ground to encourage growth of ground cover vegetation. Some forest areas, now dominated by undesirable and invasive tree species, will be converted to native species. Finally, dense white pine stands will be thinned to allow hardwood regeneration to occur and native understory vegetation to be reestablished. These practices will enhance, considerably, a portion of the property that now lacks vertical plant diversity that is a key to a diverse wildlife community. 2. Conversion of Old Farm Fields to Native Grasslands Parts of the fallowed farm fields now growing in agronomic grasses and weeds will be restored to native grasses. The existing weedy vegetation in these areas will be eradicated using selective herbicides, followed by preparation of soil, then seeding and plugging of native plants. Prescribed burning and other methods will be used for maintenance of the native grasslands. Although native prairies probably were never present in Vermont, grasslands have become part of the Vermont landscape. A number of grassland bird species are in serious decline in the Northeast and are featured in conservation activities that promote grassland management. The South Village site could contribute as a sustainable habitat for some of these species. 3. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Most of the small wetlands that will be retained in the development are within upland settings and will be restored by planting and managing the areas as diverse sedge meadows, and various other native wetland types. Existing drained wetland areas that border the large wetland area will be restored, where these areas fall within buffer areas. Patches of reed canary grass, stinging nettles, and cattails will be reduced, and the sites will be enhanced by addition of native species. These areas also will be managed with prescribed burning and other methods. Wetlands are among the most manageable of wildlife habitats, and it is well known that wildlife productivity, including enhanced species diversity, can respond to active management. 4. Stormwater Treatment Train Stormwater management is a critical concern in any development. Here, we propose to integrate native and ornamental landscaping treatments combined with some engineering strategies to effectively manage the volume and quality of water within and departing the property. The Stormwater Treatment Train (STT) is a series of linked landscape elements that begin to manage water as soon as precipitation hits the ground, and throughout its tenure on the property. The goal of the STT is to reduce the volume of water leaving the land as surface runoff (through infiltration, evaporation, and evapotranspiration), to reduce the rate at which the remaining volume leaves the land by holding the water in microdepressions, routing it through native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and ornamental landscaping designed to hold, and beneficially utilize the runoff. The benefactor of this volume and rate management for stormwater is increased quality of water leaving the uplands. 5. Landscaping Most open space in the South Village property will emphasize native landscaping using the same native species proposed for the larger project restorations. Lawns and ornamental landscapes are envisioned to be a necessity in some areas. Native landscaping in yards, if any, will primarily be focused within backyards and perhaps as an ornamental formal landscape (at the discretion of the homeowner in front and side yards around homes) in other locations of the yard. The project team will encourage use of native landscaping in as large an area of the development as possible even in yards to reduce mowing, irrigation, fertilizer and other contaminant loads generated by the development. South Village and Act 250 Criterion 8a of Act 250 states that development will not "destroy or significantly imperil necessary wildlife habitat..." Necessary wildlife habitat is defined as that habitat important to the continued existence of a population or species. "Habitat" is often defined as the place where a species lives. It is usually characterized by site conditions (e.g., wetlands vs uplands) and by plant communities and structure. Habitat may also include a reference to space (e.g., a species such as the pileated woodpecker requires 200 acres for a breeding territory). Significantly, habitat should be viewed —especially in the context of Act 250—as being species specific. Thus, many different species find habitat on the South Village property because the area offers diverse habitat conditions. It is unlikely that habitat for any of these species will be lost as a result of development. The amount of space available for wildlife will be reduced, however, perhaps resulting in lesser numbers of some species, but certainly not posing a threat to the continued existence of a population or species. The Retrovest Companies is committed to a unique plan of ecological restoration on this property that should be a substantial mitigation for loss of acreage available for wildlife. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2004 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 August 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: L. Kupferman, Acting Chair; M. Kupersmith, C. Bolton, G. Quimby, R. F arley Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Anderson, S. Vallee, R. Spindler, E. Smith, D. Scheuer, D. & M. Wetzel, B. Cimonettei, R. Erlenson, J. Prim, T. Heagher, L. Bresee, D. Miner, L. Effel, E. & D. Tolan, R. DeWolf, P. Malone, R. & S. Griffin, B. Brenia, J. Jaeger, C.Lisman, D. Swain, M & J. Koplewitz 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Minutes of 20 July and 3 August 2004: The Minutes of 20 July could not be acted upon as there was not a majority of those present at that meeting. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 3 August as written. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. ketch Plan application #SD-04-62 of South Village Communities, LLC, for a nned 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. Anderson, representing Mr. Vallee, said he felt there should be no hearing as there was no notice of the meeting provided. Mr. Belair referred to a letter of 17 August from the City Attorney indicating there is no legal reason to reschedule this hearing. There is also a letter from Mark Hall, the applicant's attorney, expressing the same opinion. Mr. Kupferman noted there will be a preliminary plat hearing which is scheduled for 7 -1- a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2004 September. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt it was improper to let a developer speak with the Board without proper notice. Ms. Hinds advised the Board to follow the City Attorney's advice. She noted that anyone who disagrees with the City Attorney's opinion can pursue the matter in Court. Ms. Hinds added that all requirements for the public hearing on 7 September have been met, but there are no requirements for notice of a sketch plan meeting. This sketch plan presentation has been put on the Board's agenda and posted in three public places, as required. Members were OK to proceed with the sketch plan presentation. Mr. Scheuer said the plan involves 220 acres. It is a large scale infill site near the intersection of Dorset St. and Allen Rd. A very small part of the project is in the Town of Shelburne. A small portion of the plan previously seen by the DRB has been removed at staffs request. Highlights of the plan include: a. a lot of open space b. a stormwater management plan that goes beyond what the State requires c. preservation of view sheds d. an ecological restoration plan to rid the site of invasive species e. the creation of a "sense of community" by using residentially scaled streets, community meeting places, and a mix of housing types and prices. On September 7, they will come to the Board with a Master Plan and a request to approve the first group of homes. There is also a commitment from a private school which wants to relocate to this site. Mr. Scheuer showed the location for the school on the plan. The Intervale Foundation will also participate in the development with an organic farming program that residents will be able to participate in. -2- D DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2004 There will be a very large network of walking paths and a continuation of the bike path. Mr. Bolton asked whether the Fire Chief has seen the plans. Mr. Scheuer said he has and has been very cooperative. Mr. Kupferman noted a new entry from Spear St. Mr. Short said this was added at the recommendation of the street designer. The Public Works Department head concurs. Mr. Kupferman asked about turn lanes. Mr. Scheuer said he understood there will be a signal at the main intersection. Mr. Spindler thought the new urban design was very thoughtful. He was concerned with Midland Avenue and said he thought South Burlington was going to protect that middle section for wildlife. He felt this road would be very damaging. Mr. Scheuer said they were told it was a "must." They have convinced staff that the road should be narrower, 20 ft. from curb to curb. The impact on the wetland has already happened because of the old road there. The impact of the new 20 ft. road will be minimal. Mr. Bolton said one reason the road is important is that the city is trying to get densities off roads like Kennedy Drive, Cheese Factory Rd., etc. Mr. Scheuer added that it is also important for emergency vehicles. Mr. Anderson felt portions of the project were very good, but he felt the project could be "turned" to address wildlife and wetland concerns. He said that would make it more consistent with what the Natural Resources Committee recommends. Mr. Anderson noted there is enough disturbance because of the road to trigger a federal permit requirement. Mr. Vallee noted that 40% of the project is in the "restricted" area. Mr. Kupferman noted that the DRB does have the option to get an impartial opinion from a technical consultant on technical issues (traffic, wetlands, etc.). Mr. Erlenson said Spear Street has very beautiful homes and views and he didn't feel this development was appropriate because of the high density and narrow streets. Ms. Prim was concerned with traffic. She said she can barely get out of her driveway -3- J/, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 AUGUST 2004 now, and with a signalized intersection, traffic will back up in front of her house. Mr. Kupferman asked if the density from the units that are not being built was transferred elsewhere on the property. Mr. Scheuer said it was and showed where lots were added. There will also be more multi -family units. Ms. Hinds explained the "technical review process." The applicant noted that the State Agency of Natural Resources has been working with them. Mr. Wetzel questioned whether the applicant can meet the affordable housing criteria. He noted that Dorset Farms is having a hard time doing that. Mr. Scheuer said they have a commitment for a non-profit administrator to oversee that. He then explained the affordable housing regulations and said he was confident they could meet the requirements. An audience member asked about the impact on schools and sewers. Mr. Scheuer said there is plenty of capacity in the school and in the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Cimonetti asked what Master Plan approval means. Ms. Hinds said a Master Plan approval establishes overall housing density, the road network and building envelopes. If, in the future, the applicant wants to change any of those things, they have to go back to sketch plan again. Mr. Miner asked if the project will have sidewalks. Mr. Scheuer said it will. Ms. Kupersmith said the densities of a Master Plan are maximums. The applicant may not be able to get those densities when they actually engineer the neighborhood. Mr. Cimonetti noted that a master plan can also be changed. Mr. Kupferman reminded interested parties of the September 7th Preliminary Plat hearing for this plan. 4. Public Bearing: Final Plat Application #SD-04-57 of Thomas and Patricia Meaker to resubdivide two lots developed with single-family dwellings. The re -subdivision consists of transferring 7601 sq. ft. of the lot at 15 Gilbert Street to 21. Gilbert Street: Mr. Belair said staff had no issues. -4- I A " f � C�D� G+ -� (e- J It DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2004 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 September 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; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; L. Bresee, G. Schramm, M. Barovick, J. Cunningham, T. Bianchi, E. Larsen, M. Merritt, R. Erlandson, N. Sykes, J. Anderson, S. Vallee, B. Hibbitts, J. Gears, L. Llewellyn, B. Cimonetti, D. & M.Wetzel, S. McIntyre, M. Moore, L. Yankowski, B. Wilford, M. More, M. Westergard, S. Lindberg, M. Mara, T. Gresham, J. Kleinman, M. Cypes, A. Netzel, R. Spindler, R. Trevithick, E. Bensen, S. Clark, P. Smechenko, D. & P. Allison, S. Rose, P. Clifford, W. Schroeder, J. Larrow, D.Sachdeva, R. Unsworth, N. Aydinyan, C. & G. Holmes, K. Lange 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Minutes of 20 July and 17 August 2004: Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 20 July as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Messrs Kupferman and Bolton abstaining. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 17 August as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Messrs. Boucher and Dinklage abstaining. Mr. Dinklage then noted that since a majority of those present in the audience had come to hear items 4 and 5 discussed, he felt the Board should first attend to a situation involving those items. He then read a letter from the applicant requesting a postponement of the 2 hearings due to a family emergency affecting one of the presenters. A general discussion then ensured during which the following comments and observations were made: Mr. Anderson (representing the Vallees who are abutting property owners): He recommended that the applicant address "deficiencies" in the plan before the next hearing. He also raised the question of a road crossing Dorset Farms common land and whether that makes Dorset Farms part of these applications. Mr. Anderson cited traffic issues related to that road. Mr. Belair noted that staff is recommending technical review for traffic. - 1 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2004 After a brief discussion, Mr. Kupferman moved that the Board invoke technical review for the applicant's traffic study. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kupfennan said he had the same concern for environmental work that has been done and asked whether that could also come up for technical review. Mr. Belair said staff wasn't sure at this time. There is an effort to get agreement on boundaries of the wetlands. If the parties can't agree, technical review may be invoked for that issue. Mr. Kupferman also asked for a separate report on the Spear Street traffic study so the Board and the public know what is being planned. Ms. Hinds said there will be a presentation on that study at the City Council meeting on 20 September. There will also be the opportunity to use that study's findings for the technical review. Ms. Barovick: She observed that she is having trouble getting out of her driveway now (at Ridgewood) and asked if this would be considered. Mr. Belair said traffic will be reviewed by at least 2 experts. Mr. Dinklage added that the consultant can be asked to include the intersections near Ridgewood in their study. Mr. Merritt: He expressed concern with public notification and asked where the meetings are warned. Mr. Dinklage said the DRB schedule is on the city's website as are agendas for all meetings. Agendas are also posted at Grand Union, Hannaford, and Graceys. Abutting property owners are notified by mail of preliminary and final plat hearings. Ms. Hinds added that public hearings are warned in Seven Days under "Legal Notices." Ms. Schramm: She felt notice should be in the Free Press. Ms. Hinds explained that using Seven Days saved the city over $5000 a year and that this was a decision of the City Council. Mr. Larsen: He asked about the process the developer goes through with a plan. Mr. Dinklage explained that for this development, there will first be a Master Plan application. This includes the number of units planned, roadways, etc. Once a Master Plan is approved, the developer can then come back with specific implementation based on the Master Plan. Mr. Cunningham: He asked if there would be a poll taken at Dorset Farms as to whether to allow the road to cross Dorset Farms. Mr. Bianchi said the developer told them Midland would never be a through street. Now they are hearing it will be a connecting road. He said the problem is a level of trust with the developer. He felt that notification was important so people don't think something is being "slid by them." -2- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2004 Ms. Hinds said that the extension of Midland has been on the Official City Map for 14 years. There was a stipulation in the Dorset Farms approval that the road would be connected through. She added that she felt badly that homeowners were misled by the developer. Mr. Dinklage then read the stipulation from the original Dorset Farms approval indicating that Midland would be connected when the adjoining property was developed. Mr. Erlandson questions whether development was getting ahead of the ability to provide utilities and services for them. He referred to a letter from Green Mountain Power regarding system "transmission stress." Mr. Dinklage said that one of the advantages of the PUD process is that the Board must ascertain that city services are adequate and must sign off on that. He then cited major renovations to the water tower to address city needs. A homeowner asked if the stipulation from the original Dorset Farms approval could be reversed. Mr. Dinklage said there would have to be a full-blown review of the whole PUD. Mr. Boucher added that it is the city's goal to interconnect neighborhoods. Mr. Gears said things have to happen in someone's backyard and people just can't think of their little strip. He felt the important thing was to make the connection safe. Ms. Hibbitts noted that she lives at Stonehedge, and Spear Street is already overloaded so that she can't get out of the development at any time of day. Mr. Dinklage said there is a formal study underway for a long-range plan for Spear Street. Ms. Hinds added that this study will be presented to the City Council on 20 September. Mr. Sykes felt that the design of Midland would encourage a "speedway." He said that Dorset Farms has many children, and this would create a hazard for them. He also noted that the proposed new community would have very small houses, not necessarily family homes. This would mean fewer children and residents who may not be as "kid aware" as they should be. He suggested traffic claming devices such as a median. Mr. Dinklage felt this was an excellent suggestion. Mr. Boucher added that the traffic consultant would look at those options. Ms. Hinds said the city has many investments in traffic calming. Neighbors need to request this. She suggested the Dorset Farms neighborhood talk to the City Council as there are resources to make this happen. Mr. Merritt said you can't stop change, but you do need to influence change. He appreciated the Board listening to concerns of the neighbors, especially since the agenda items were not being heard. -3- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2004 Mr. Bresee said he has lived in the community more than 30 years. He encouraged everyone present to teach this process to their children so that they are more informed when they become homeowners. Ms. Yankowski added that being involved in the planning for a Master Plan is a very good experience. She also noted that there are citizens who are opposing the Velco upgrade. Ms. More asked which group in South Burlington is responsible for following up on developments as they happen to be sure they are built as they are supposed to be. Mr. Dinklage said city staff is in charge of enforcement issues. He added that there are some complex issues such as maintenance of stormwater systems. The city is thinking of establishing a stormwater utility to address this particular concern. Mr. Dinklage noted that Mr. Belair is the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Belair added that others involved in the process are the Public Works Superintendent, the Water Pollution Control Department Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Water Department. There are also controls at the state level via Act 250. Ms. Hinds added that the City Manager and the City Engineer are also involved in this process. Mr. Dinklage said it is very important for citizens to contact city staff if they see anything that arouses concern. Mr. Boucher then moved to continue Master Plan Application #MP-04-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-04-55 of South Village Communities to 28 September 2004. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. 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 Street. The amendment consists of eliminating condition #11 which requires a mutual access easement to the property to the north (University Inn): Ms. McIntyre read a letter from Finard & Co./University Mall in which they said they did not feel the information available has been responsive to the Board's request. Ms. McIntyre said UMall is requesting a postponement of the hearing to allow the consultant to complete review of all data to allow consultants for both the applicant and the city to work together to assess the "bigger picture," and to allow all parties to understand the potential risks and benefits of the condition in question. Ms. Kupersmith said she didn't feel the Board got enough information from the consultant. Mr. Belair reminded the Board that they must answer the question of whether or not to eliminate Stipulation #11, not what kind of connection to build. Ms. McIntyre said the stipulation says they have to build to the design as shown, and that is their concern. Mr. Belair suggested the applicant submit a list of questions for the consultant to address. He emphasized to the applicant that the city regulations require connections between properties unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. He felt the Board has not yet heard that overwhelming reason. -4- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 3, 2004 \drb\sub\south_village\masterplan.doc Plans received: August 31, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #SD-04-01 Agenda #4 Meeting Date: September 7, 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 'e i gyp. � "�` - �'' • .y..,It Subject Property q1" , r F : x r d 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). 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 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. H. 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. 2 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. 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 4 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 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. 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 will be provided at the meeting on 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 11 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 31 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 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 7 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. §1 5.18(A)(1 0) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). 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. 9 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. 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 10 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. 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. 11 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. The Proposed Master Plan is in compliance with the South Burlington Official Map, last revised February 14, 2004. 12 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 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 a 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 buildings and building lots that comprise the upper portion of this phase are HE 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 submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning, prior to recording of the Master Plan. 15 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. 9. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 16 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 Roberton, Associate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 17 i ao The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S By Fax: 846-4101 September 7, 2004 Re: South Village Communities, LLC Mr. Brian Robertson Department of Planning and Zoning City of Burlington, Vermont 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 Chellman, 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. Chellman's introduction of the project, as this will provide the most clarity to a complex project. Accordingly, we appreciate your flexibility and regret this inconvenience to your staff, the Development Review Board and the public. Sincerely, David Scheuer President 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.coni CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 3, 2004 \sub\south village\preliminary_phasel.doc Plans received: July 16, 2004 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-04-55 Agenda #5 Meeting Date: September 7, 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 Maxe low T. :x ..., ♦ Of f Subject Property 40 1 � h • s ri, A ` 40 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminaN 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 a public hearing on September 7, 2004. David Scheuer represented the applicant. 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 Burlington 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). 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc 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 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 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 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; CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc 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 districts) 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. 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). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phasel.doc 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 Vem7ont 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 utility lines shall be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\prelimina!y phasel.doc 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 sere 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\preliminaa 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 BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \sub\south village\preliminary phase1 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 Burtington 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 111 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 Burlington 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. Respectfull submitted, rian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: David Scheuer, Applicant Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. .. � _ - -. _ � � /'r it '� ' -�' �• }i ¢7 { � - .tea —r-• � � � ,ws' No Text 1: f !_ . TF, i No Text No Text No Text No Text i "�+ — � t '� � + � rti . � � . Yi 4; �, -'Y , r � ' t 1 R' � r '�` �y , �� r r I' . 1 _. � ' ,,, t� � �'�• 1� r.;• .. t r '� (� 1 .,,.,,'• 1' tn�. '.� {'�{. ��' ,` . �, r �� ;'S �,n �� l —r a ...� �"'. :., . _�' �i � � _ .�-�� �. I ,/ —'� 1 ._.,_...r.. _ . �....- 9� nJ� i :. - . 6 4 ���'. 1 �.. s :. _� .s.. � �. 1 � ` ...i. ��. .. 1 _ � � +t µ r � r i � �_ r� 1 „i .. ';. South Burlington Public Works 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802)658-7961 SAX: (802)658-7976 0 ce 101 LANDfILL RC Memorandum TO: Development Review Board FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director DATE: September 7, 2004 CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator RE: South Village The following are comments on the latest set of plans dated August 2004. The comments are an addition to my memo dated 11/21/02. Because of all the waivers that are being ask for it is highly recommended that the board ask for review of any waivers by an engineer independent of the developers. We have granted waivers as explained in the memo from 11/21/02. The developer needs to show the city that the waivers for non -curbed streets are for the benefit of storm water treatment. • The intersection of Spear and Allen will be traffic light controlled as a result of this development. The developer shall confirm that the ROW exists for the infrastructure to light the intersection. The city has used most of its ROW on the Northwest and the Southwest of the intersection. There may have to be additional ROW purchased to equip this location and should be dealt with at the beginning of this process. • Project needs to comply with South Burlington Specifications for Construction, except where waiver granted. • 1 would not grant the waiver for AL-26 road if this were the only road frontage for a lot. The city would probably end up owning these roads in the future. If this street is just and alley way behind a property as originally proposed then I have no problem with them. • Hard to tell from plans but the section of road that runs North to South on the East side of the proposed farm land seems to have changed from what was agreed to. • If utilities are to be place in City ROW then they need to be placed as called for by the City Engineer and not by the utilities. There is to be no agreements between the developer and the utilities that have to do with our ROW (no easements). • City sewers need to be run in our ROW in the center of the streets and not through wetlands or back of properties as shown on plans. • All sidewalks are to comply with new ADA rules. Truncated Domes at all ramps. • Checker board grates for catch basins are to be 24" square. • All round covers for manholes on sanitary or storm sewers are to be 26". • All connections for change in direction for under ground pipes, sanitary or storm, except for foundation or sanitary service connections, need to be made in structures. Smith Btirlington Street Department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 OFFICE 104 LANDFILL. RP Memorandum TO: Design Review Board FROM: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director DATE: November 21, 2002 CC: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator RE: South Village Street Widths After a number of meetings with the developer and his team we have reached agreement on changes to pavement widths for their development. The following deals with street width only, and not for waivers on other things such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those that are to remain public. I would recommend that the board keep in mind that the lowest speed limit that can be legally posted in the state of Vermont is 25 mph. All the roads that are public are to be designed for this speed limit. I would also ask the board to keep in mind that it is a possibility that the city may own all the roads in this development some time in the future. It may be beneficial to have a traffic engineer hired by the city review any changes for which waivers are granted. Changes to our rules that I have agreed to are as follows: • Right of Way widths are to be 60' for both Public and Private roads with one exception and that is the cross section labeled AL-26. • The cross section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer enters into agreements to keep the area designated as agricultural. • Paved road width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'. • Any area where there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the city has the ability to make changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permit. • All construction shall be to city specs with the exception of widths. • The other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, BV-66, ST-60Pa, ST-60, ST-60Pb and ST-60P • The sub -base for ST-60Pa is to be constructed for a 28' pavement width. All signage for this project is the responsibility of the developer and all stripping shall be of 3M Tape or Thermal Plastic. The developer shall provide fire hydrant flags. I I South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief September 2, 2004 Ms. Juli Beth Hinds, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village Project Spear Street Dear Juli: I have reviewed the proposed Master Plan for the South Village project. I have kept most of my comments generalized as each phase of the project will most likely present its own specific issues. Road widths and turning radii should be monitored throughout. 2. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of hoselines, portable ladders and other equipment. 3. Hydrants are generally not an issue as they are situated to comply with the city water regulations. 4. The need for sprinklers and alarm systems will generally follow the Labor and Industry Fire Prevention codes. At this time these are my main concerns. Should you need any further information please feel free to contact me. Spimerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 January 13, 2005 Civil Engineering Associates Mr. Dave Marshall P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 RE: South Village Dear Dave: The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the Master Plan for the above referenced project. Although these plans do not show enough detail to offer specific remarks on the water distribution system, I would like to offer the following comments to assist you in future design changes as the review process continues. Please refer also to my previous comments on this project. 1. The attached Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. As your project continues, the Application for Water Allocation will need final approval from this Department, which will be contingent upon available water storage capabilities within the City. Current water distribution system upgrades have been substantially completed that should allow for the construction of your project, pending approval of all other local and State requirements. 2. All construction drawings and plans shall have a note stating the following "All water line and related work to be performed in accordance with the Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water lines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Owned by the Champlain Water District, the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1, and the Village of Jericho, (henceforth the "CWD Specifications.") You have included this note in your current drawings. However, you may remove the last sentence in your note that states "Details should be modified to the above referenced specifications" as that was a note I requested specific only to a former set of plans we reviewed. 3. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly, and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance For The Control Of Cross Connections Within The Water System Of the City Of South Burlington, henceforth the `Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on backflow protection devices. 4. Looping of all water lines shall be a design requirement. All looping connections shall be at a point so as to eliminate any dead ends on any water main. 5. Eight -inch and larger Ductile Iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new mains shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. DI water pipe shall be Class 52, cement lined. Polyethylene pipe sleeve encasement shall be required for all DI pipe installed for this project. 6. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum of 500' apart. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. All gate valves in this project area shall be made from a corrosion resistant material, and have stainless steel bolts in the valve body. 7. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. Fire hydrant assemblies shall consist of an anchor tee connected directly to a six-inch RW gate valve, the appropriate length of 6" DI pipe, the fire hydrant, and appropriate thrust block. All hydrants shall meet the aforementioned CWD Specifications, and a hydrant flag shall be supplied with each hydrant. Hydrant drains shall have all drains plugged prior to installation. Note: Waterous fire hydrants must be installed with a "Boston Operating Nut." 8. Generally, single-family residences shall have 1/4" K-copper service lines tapped directly into DI pipe six -inches in diameter and larger. A curb stop, concrete block, and Erie box with stainless steel rod shall be installed just inside the right- of-way for each service, per the above referenced CWD Specifications. 9. Fire flow conditions must be able to meet the requirements stated in the CWD Specifications, as well as meeting any conditions set forth by the Fire Department. This project is at the end of end of an area served directly by the South Burlington East (Dorset Street) water storage tank that has recently been raised to a maximum fill level of 555' that should provide sufficient fire flows and pressures to meet the above referenced CWD Specifications. None -the -less, sufficient engineering and design must be performed in order to meet State Water Supply Rule and the above CWD Specification requirements. 10. Normal working pressure in the distribution system for this project shall be designed to produce 60 psi and not less than 35 psi. Further, the CWD Specifications requires all hydrants in a residential development be able to supply no less than 500 gpm. at 20 psi at the worst -case hydrant residual pressure. The developer and his engineer are responsible for ensuring any hydraulic design for this project considers these requirements. The developer and engineer are responsible for all inadequacies in water supply pressure within the project boundaries, for fire and domestic requirements, including those associated with the aforementioned changes. It may be necessary, after your firm reviews hydraulic modeling, to include a booster pump station for this development. 11. No underground utility shall be installed within four feet from the water main on either side, from the top of the main to the finish grade, with the exception of storm sewer and sanitary sewer as stated in the above referenced CWD Specifications. Generally, trees shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 12. Separation between the water main and service line and nearby sanitary and storm sewer lines shall comply with the VT WSR requirements and the above referenced CWD Specifications. 13. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor must contact this Department to discuss City requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and backflow protection. 14. The SBWD shall be sent any future hard copy plans involving this project for review. Future plans must include details and specifications as required in the above referenced Specifications. 15. The SBWD shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, water line crossings, and testing. 16. Further review changes may be required as this project proceeds through the permit process. 17. A hard copy set of As-Builts as well as one electronic copy in Auto-CAD.DWG Version 14 Format or newer shall be supplied to this department upon completion of the water system improvements. Comments specific to the Master Plan review, on pages S1.1, C-6.0-6.6, C-9.2 1. Sheet C6.0 a. The future water connection point to Spear Street in the southwest corner shall be removed. b. A future water connection point to Spear Street may be required at the northern entrance to this project, in the future. This connection point will be through a PRV and vault. 2. Sheet C-6.1: a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. d. Water main extensions shall be continuous to the furthest property line of the project. A dead-end water main shall have a hydrant installed at the end of the water main or a temporary blow off for water quality flushing purposes. 3. Sheet C-6.2 a. The proposed eight -inch water main shall not extend to or connect with the Spear street water main. The line shall be removed from future plans at the corner of this subdivision. b. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" c. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. d. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. 4. Sheet C-6.3 a. The proposed 12" water main shall be connected to the Spear Street water main on the west side of Spear Street. A pressure -reducing vault with an approved pressure -reducing valve shall be installed on the proposed water main east of this intersection on the north side of the new road from South Village to Spear Street across from Allen Road, in the green belt. This will require the boring and sleeving under Spear Street for the new water main, and a wet tap on Spear Street on the existing 12" water main. There will also have to be installed a second sleeve of the same size or larger, for a future water line that will connect from the SB Main Service area to this water distribution system. 5. Sheet C-6.4 a. Please define an "Air Release Hydrant" b. All tee intersections shall have a minimum of three (3) gate valves. Cross sections (four-way intersections) shall have a minimum of four (4) gate valves. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed at each intersection, with a maximum of 500' between hydrants. d. The proposed 12' water main shall not go under the footings of the future bridge, but instead shall go around the north end of the footings while maintaining proper burial depth. 6. Sheet C-6.5 a. The proposed future water main shall not go under the future box culvert, but instead shall go around the north end of the culvert while maintaining proper burial depth. b. Gate valves shall be installed a maximum 500' apart. 7. Sheets 6.6, 9.2 a. Please modify all Water Details to those found in the above referenced CWD Specifications. Specifically, concrete shall not be poured underneath any gate valve. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincerely, hJaadeau Superintendent CC. Brian Robertson DD. Doug Brent Plan Reviews: South Village -prelim 1-05 South Burlington Planning &Zoning To: Dorset Farms Homeowners Association Dan Wetzel From: Juli Beth Hoover, AIC Director of Planning & ning RE: Notification for South Village Hearings Date: August 24, 2004 cc: Chuck Hafter, City Manager Amanda Lafferty, Esq., Stitzel Page & Fletcher The Department of Planning and Zoning has received numerous differing requests for notification and information related to upcoming meetings of the Development Review Board involving the Retrovest "South Village" project. Consistent with its staff and financial resources, Vermont law, and City regulations and policies, the Department provides public notice of all land development in South Burlington. Citizens interested in the process should take some measure of responsibility for using available sources of information. Consistent with the City's Land Development Regulations and applicable Vermont statute, the Department will observe the following policy with respect to public notice for meetings involving the South Village project: (i) Notice of public hearings (preliminary plat, master plan, and final plat applications) will be published in Seven Days at least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing held by the DRB. Seven Days is issued weekly on Wednesdays, and is free and available at many places of public accommodation throughout Shelburne and South Burlington. Classified and legal notices in Seven Days are also available on the newspaper's website, www.sevendaysvt.com. (2) Both a tentative schedule of meetings and Development Review Board agendas are posted on the City's website, www.sburl.com. DRB agendas are posted on the website on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. (3) DRB agendas are posted, on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, at Hannaford supermarket on Shelburne Road, Gracie's market on Hinesburg Road, the Grand Union supermarket on Hinesburg Road, and in the front window of the municipal office building, 575 Dorset Street. (4) The Town of Shelburne and all abutting property owners of record, without respect to intervening rights -of -way, will receive a letter via first class mail sent out on the day the notice is published in the newspaper. As noted in (1), this will occur a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing. In the event staff are not able to send out the notice via first class mail on the same day the notice is published, the notices will be sent as soon as possible therafter. (5) The Dorset Farms Homeowners Association will receive the same first-class mailing sent to: Dorset Farms Commons Association, c/o MBL Associates, 25 Pinecrest Drive, Essex Junction, Vermont 05452• (6) Individuals who contact the Department of Planning and Zoning personally and ask to be added to the mailing list will be added. With the present list of 49 parties, it costs the City $38 per mailing. Notifying 250 parties by first-class mail would cost the City $120 per mailing. Those who would be willing to receive an e-mail notification instead of mail would help reduce the City's expense. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLA1 NEI� iG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 August 13, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 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, August 17, 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, e t� UC Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. Do Do Do The Retrovest Companies B U I L D E R S& D E V E L O P E R S August 12, 2004 Ray Belair, Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington ][Ymr Ray -- You and I had discussed sending a South Village "plan' book to the members of the Design Review Board a week prior to the hearing. Do you still think that would be a good idea. As you will see, the plan book is out of date and I have stamped it CONCEPUTAL. Also enclosed is an illustrate site plan and home type by lot plan that is representative of what they will be reviewing on September 7, 2004. Lets discuss how to handle this after you return next week. Thank �u tdi ut& Michelle 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 802-863-8323 800-679-1929 F 802-863-1339 www.retrovest.com E MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RE: South Village Communities, LLC Sketch Plan #SD-04-62 Date: August 10, 2004 On Tuesday, August 17th, the DRB will review the Sketch Plan application of South Village Communities, LLC for the South Village project. A public hearing on the Master Plan application for the same project has been warned for Tuesday, September %th. The DRB last reviewed the sketch plan for this project on December 3, 2002. The minutes of that meeting are enclosed. Section 15.05(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires the DRB to review a sketch plan again if the prior sketch plan review took place more than six months prior to submittal of the subdivision or Master Plan application. Thus, the DRB must review the sketch plan application for this project in advance of the September 7th public hearing on the Master Plan. As the current sketch plan application is substantially unchanged from the application reviewed in December of 2002, staff recommends that the DRB allow the sketch plan to proceed to the Master Plan public hearing on September 7th. On that date, the DRB will conduct a detailed review of the Master Plan application. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 3 Mr. Boucher asked about a possible right-of-way to the rear of the property if the adjacent property is developed. Mr. Smith said he was willing to do that and would make changes to accommodate it. Mr. Cameron asked if would be reasonable to close curb cuts here. Mr. Bolton said if the building were turned and there were diagonal parking, it would make it easier to use the future access. Mr. Smith said the design is based on what they have today. Mr. Bolton felt it would be hard to improve traffic flow if the building is located where it is. Mr. Kupferman said a trade-off for him in the future would be 1 front access for the rear access. Mr. Boucher moved to approve application #CU-02-54 and Site Plan Application #SP-02-54 of Jolley Associates subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 3 December 2002. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Bolton opposing. Mr. Cameron said he didn't understand the rationale for closing curb cuts. He felt this was an ideal spot to close a curb cut, especially with the possibility of a future access in back. Mr. Belair said they look at additional traffic, use, etc. Almost all gas stations have 2 curb cuts. This one operates as a one curb cut for incoming and one for outgoing traffic. It is an existing situation. 7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-02-44 of Retrovest Associates, Inc., for a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi- family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Anderson, representing the Vallees, gave the Board information on their position. The Board also received a memo from Bruce Hoar regarding Public Works issues. Mr. Scheuer presented the plan. He noted the location is at Spear St. and Allen Road. The goals of the project include environmental stewardship, and the plan is designed based on what they found on the site. There will be an innovative stormwater plan, integration of landscape architecture and land planning to create places where people want to congregate. There will be a mix of housing types and prices. The project will incorporate a density bonus consistent with what is being proposed by the city. The units created as a result of the density bonus will be "affordable." Mr. Scheuer then spoke of the partnership with Intervale Association to reintroduce agriculture to this site as well as a network of trails. Mr. Schulman, project engineer, the showed the details of street design and connections between neighborhoods. He reviewed the optimal speeds for traffic in certain areas and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 4 for a mix of motorists and non -motorists. The are proposing both public and private streets. Mr. Schulman noted there is an amendment to the Zoning Regs pending which will allow this. Private streets will be designed for 20 mph traffic; public streets would be designed for 25 mph. Mr. Hoar recommended 25 mph for both as the city cannot enforce a 20 mph speed limit. Mr. Schulman said they are requesting a 20 mph design but would not post the street for that speed. Mr. Dinklage said that staff recommends the city hire a traffic consultant to analyze the street layout. There is a question of liability if this is considered unsafe and the city has allowed it. Mr. Kupferman asked whose liability it is (city, homeowners, etc.). He said he appreciated the arrangement for roads designed for safe speeds. But he noted the Board doesn't have control over what is being proposed here. Mr. Dinklage asked for a proposal that everyone can live with. Mr. Belair suggested the traffic consultant be asked to look at traffic and roadway engineering. Members agreed. Mr. Bolton asked if the proposed private roads would remain private. Mr. Dinklage said this would have to be very clear in the deeds. Mr. Bolton noted this has been a problem before when residents demanded that the city maintain streets because people are paying taxes. Mr. Scheuer said there will be paperwork to preclude this problem. It will be a deed restriction. Mr. Bolton said road maintenance is expensive, and if people are paying $34,000 in taxes they will petition the city to take over the roads. Mr. Boucher moved to invoke technical review for both traffic and roadway engineering. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schulman then showed the relationship of buildings to the street. There are 9 different street types proposed in the project, some with rear alleys. There are no streets without buildings on them. There will be a 60 ft. r.o.w. at the principal entrance. All other rights of way are 60 ft. Mr. Hoar said r-o-w width is key so changes can be made if necessary. He said this was the problem at Valley Ridge where there isn't sufficient right-of-way. Mr. Cameron asked what the typical setback would be. Mr. Schulman said it depends on the type of building and would range from 0 to 10 ft. Mr. Dinklage asked about the size of a fire truck. Mr. Belair said this cannon accommodate a ladder truck. A specific kind of fire truck may be needed. Mr. Marshall said they have agreed to apply information from the Fire Chief to their preliminary plat design. They will meet the Chief s needs. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 5 Mr. Bolton said he liked the concept but didn't know anything like it near Burlington. He felt it could establish a trend in development. He said he needed to get over the feeling: "...it looks good on paper, but..." Mr. Scheuer said they built a project in Stowe Village and would be willing to arrange a visit for the Board. This would provide a visual image. Mr. Schulman said they have done over 100 of these projects in the country and all are successful. Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Belair reviewed staff notes: Mr. Dinkiage noted density will require an ordinance change which is now being considered by the Planning Commission. The number of lots served by a private street will also require ordinance changes. Mr. Belair said the lots are quite small. He didn't have a problem with that but didn't want a small lot with 95% coverage. He would like a coverage limit for each lot and one for the whole project. He had no problem with the 0 setback as long as there is a 60 ft. r.o.w. He felt they applicant had done an excellent job a showing parking. There are still some issues regarding wetland buffers which are part of lots. Restricted areas also need to be shown. Mr. Dinklage stressed the importance of the applicant meeting with the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Cameron asked what the project means in the context of affordable housing. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't looked at the degrees of affordability. Every unit they build under the bonus provision will be affordable. He stressed that they couldn't build any affordable units without the bonus provision. They are also looking at issues regarding perpetual affordability. Mr. Anderson noted that the Vallees own the property immediately south of this proposed development. He said they want a proposal that is consistent with what the city has felt about the Southeast Quadrant for a long time. He felt that higher density housing may be appropriate on the western side of the property and possibly on the eastern side. In the middle, however, there is a large wetland and significant wildlife area which they feel should remain in tact. They felt the project should be scaled down to a level that characterizes South Burlington and there shouldn't be roadways going across the wetlands. He felt there could still be a good project without these incursions. Mr. Anderson said the work done by the applicant was done in August when the area is much drier. He noted that the Vallees have hired a consultant and are working on a way to have him get on the land. Mr. Anderson also noted that the Agency of Natural Resources commented about the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 6 intact wildlife area and also said densities are too high to be compatible with this. He also provided information on roadway decisions which indicate you can't build a roadway through a wetland except as a last resort and you must consider alternatives. Mr. Anderson asked the Board to look at density issues. He said he calculated 265 units or about 2000 people per sq. mile, and South Burlington is now about 350 per sq. mile. Mr. Dinklage noted that the proposed number of units meets the present ordinance. Mr. Anderson said that is the absolute maximum if you adhere to environmental amenities on the site. He said the Board doesn't automatically grant that density. He added that the current owner of the land has submitted testimony to Act 250 that they were astounded by the density that would be allowed on this land and felt no more than 100 units should be the maximum. This plan is for 3 times that. Mr. Anderson said they also believe the overall design has to meet very firm criteria to build in the restricted zone and he didn't think they had. Mr. Dinklage said that will be addressed at preliminary plat. Mr. Dinklage noted that a wetland study was done and the Board has a letter on that. Mr. Anderson noted that access to the land for that study was through the Vallee's property and they assumed the same courtesy would be given to them. He said they believe there are inaccuracies in the study that was done. He also said they are being told they can't go on the site except under some unprecedented conditions. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't denied access, they just want appropriate sharing of information. Mr. Valley said he will suggest that the Army Corps of Engineers be invited to participate in the study of the property. He also said that the suggestion that the state agrees with the boundaries is not true. He stressed that the wetland analysis should be done with a great deal of care. The city's own wetland maps show a significant area that the wetlands experts missed entirely. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee. He also said that wildlife issues are reviewed at Act 250. Ms. Hoover felt it would be appropriate to get input from the Planning Commission on assessment of Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Dinklage said if issues discussed are resolved, the project will go to preliminary plat. 08/10/2004 13:15 802626' DATEt TO FAX Il rRON s RE: I PAOICS CALKINS CALKINS ROCK PRODUCI'S9 INC. PAUL R. CALKINS, PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 82, LYNDONVILLE, VERMONT OW I (8M 626-5765 FAX (8M 626-1160 F A C S I M I L E F A C E S H E 9 T IEr ANY PART or THIS TRANSMISSION WAS MISSING OR UNABLE TO BE READ. —FAX US A RKQUIIST VOR A SECOND TRANSMISSION. THANK YOU. PAGE 01 08/10/2004 13:15 8026261'r0 CALKINS 6ENI BY: HETHOVEST COMPANIES; 1 802 863 1339; AUG-9 3:51PM; 'emit Numba SP• - PAGE 02 PAGE 214 Yage 1 of Permit Number SD - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW qll information requested on this application must bo completed in full. Failure to provide the requcstcd information ,ither on this application fo m or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review )cfore the Devolopinent Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. mailing address, phone and fax #) 0n6Orwr4r /x/t)97 .SaBurl.,tQnd<?rc 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and paF #) g& 9L&a9t A1a arc. ✓Zi 0, Ml. /off /o 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) A2UrA ► lAyAdit ComquNiritrs. LLC 70 &wry /Yimooa&f Alen, $�J�i�.in�CiYPW, Yr ggG► -9,u3 d,r aw S10.9 - /.19 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPFATY (fee simple, option, etc,)_._ 5) CONTACT P13RSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) VAY10 Ar. 70 ap. /Naos�� .�r�l 1 u� c m�� Kr- osNoj b) PROJECT STMT T AUORF.SS: I fto aae-4,gsr. .50,6yx,��✓e - 05g03 7) TAX PARCEL, TD # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) / G y0 - 0IhlO • r- . 8) PROTECT DESCRIMON A) Existing Uses on Prgperty (including description and size of each scparatc use) oo-ye b) Proposed Uses on property (includc douzipdon and size of each now use and existing uses to remain) A i M oR .'.l� ju homes c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) � V //lam _ d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) o) Number of resid"al units (if applicable, new unite and existing units to remain) � Other (list any odw information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay 8/9/2004 08/10/2004 13:15 8026261'S0 CALKINS SENT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 863 1339; AUG-9- 3:52PM; 'emvt N mber SP- PAGE 03 PAGE a/a Page L of )istiiets are applicable) )) LOT COVEALAGE a) Building: Existing_ 0• ox % Proposed J6 % b) Overall (buildin& parking, outside stonNM etc) Baftling% Proposed -% c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % 10) TYPE OF gXISTTNG OR PROPOSED ENCLUBRANCES ON PROPERTY (casements, covenants, Ica. -,Cs, rights of way, etc.) Cwfifil , & elednCai ej&&tf&-,at south end of prop", ?M&-a/ >ro ryiEar�ancr 64.2 warms 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPA1, FACILITIES (san1 tars sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage. etc.) W0W-MiJIMAY e'pst�tslod SYS art LP9e��M�Auwv rrq r�ar,r5� 7o evL&sZ7*4S}jry�AL.LjW_Ry 6ArdR. uO�uf eoomedriA)n 7"D PoRStCrrAA04S WITU - urlfAst OAIN1 IpN� 7a j7W(Se ' Fyn ig-irr. 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be �inovidod on a separate attached sheet) 13) ESTDAATED PROAdCT COMPLETION bATE �dl+,J 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans seals be submitted which show3 the infonnation listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size cUPies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125, 8/9/2004 08/10/2004 13:15 8026261";0 CALKINS PAGE 04 StW1 UY: NtINUVttiI GUMeANltai i due coo 1JJy1- AUU^J J.JLrIV,r r.+u: vi- 'ermit Number SP- - rage -1 o[ hereby ftr6f ► d ittformati0n Mquestod as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the ,est of my know"sp. ) /% -11000' SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Leo not write below this line DAIL OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed thin sketch plan application and find it to be: ❑ coalplew ❑ LIC01Uplcte Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date srorzooa Cl8/1! Els IGII IIE;RII IGi A"SJ JCIAQPSO, ll`Ir� 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 July 16, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Phase 1 Preliminary Plan Application Dear Mr. Robertson: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com South Village Communities, LLC is pleased to submit this Phase I Preliminary Plan application for the South Village residential neighborhood proposed to be located off of the east side of Spear Street near Allen Road. To assist the Development Review Board in evaluating this application, we have summarized the components of the application in a format consistent with the requirements set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 15.05 (B) Site Plan Information - All applicable information required for Site Plan approval as outlined in Section 14.05 shall be submitted at the preliminary plat stage for subdivisions involving multi -family uses or planned unit development. 15.07 (B) Master Plan Required - For all projects in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District with 10 or more proposed units. This has been previously submitted. 15.08 (A) PUD Approval Procedure - Preliminary Plat Application - The applicant requests that the City accept this Preliminary Plat application after the 6 month time frame in light of the adoption of the new Land Development Regulations which had a direct impact on this project in the intervening time frame. The following information is required to be submitted with the preliminary Plat application. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 2 of 12 July 16, 2004 (1) All Sketch Plan items -These have been updated or supplemented. Some have not been submitted as they relate more to the master Plan application process. 15.11 Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District (Article 10) - Article 10 does provide some opportunities on the south side of the view protection zone relative to the placement of structures within the view protection zone. At this time, no structures are proposed in this area. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUD's and Subdivisions - Please note that previously design discussions with Mr. Bruce Hoar have produced a memorandum of understanding on the proposed road sections associated with this project which do vary from that outlined in this section of the regulations. (E) Entrances - The traffic study submitted with the Master Plan application addresses the traffic circulation and safety issues at each one of these locations. (F) Stormwater Management - We request that the City rely upon the issuance of a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the State that the applicant has met its burden of proof relative the requirements of this section. We will be submitting the required information to the State in a timely manner which will allow for review and approval by the time Final Plat approval is sought. 15.14 Required Improvements (B) Reference Monuments - shall be installed at the corners of the PUD property and along the new roads. We would propose that these be installed as part of the construction phase to reduce replacement costs. 15.18 (A) General Standards - 1 . Legal data: a. A list of the owners of record of abutting properties, which may be generated by the Department of Planning and Zoning or by the applicant. This information submitted with the recent Master Plan application has been attached in this application. b. Boundaries of existing zoning and special districts on the subject property and adjacent zoning and special district boundaries. This has been depicted on the existing conditions plans. C. Area and boundaries of the property, building or setback lines as required in this chapter, and lines of existing streets and adjoining lots, as shown on a survey. This has been depicted on the existing conditions plans. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 3 of 12 July 16, 2004 d. Streams, drainage ways, and associated stream buffer areas as set forth in Article 12. This has been depicted on the existing conditions plans. e. Reservations, easements and areas dedicated to public use, if known, shall be shown. No areas are specifically to be dedicated to the City other than the proposed public streets and pedestrian path. The remaining trail systems will be open to the public. f. Lot dimensions and survey data, and section and lot numbers of the subject property. This has been depicted on the survey plat plans. 2. General project description: a. The title of the development, date, North arrow, scale, name and address of the owner of record and of the applicant, if other than the owner, and of the engineer, architect, landscape architect or surveyor preparing the plan shall be shown on a preliminary site plan map. Where the applicant or owner is a corporation, the Development Review Board may require the names and addresses of all officers, directors and principal stockholders of said corporation. The referred scale shall be not less than one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet. The above information has been included on the plans. Please note that due to the size of the project, some plans are at a scale of larger than 1 " = 30 b. Such map shall show the applicant's entire property, adjacent properties, streets within two hundred (200) feet of the site, approximate location and dimensions of all existing structures, and location of all existing structures on adjacent properties and within one hundred (100) feet of the site boundary. At the discretion of the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board, the required area of the site plan may be increased. These are all shown on the orthophoto based plans and many of these structures are shown on the remaining plans. C. Such map shall show proposed structures, access points, and general internal circulation. This is depicted on all of the proposed plans including the proposed sidewalks and pedestrian paths plan prepared by Land -Works. d. Existing and proposed contours at a maximum vertical interval of two (2) feet. 2' contour intervals have been provided. 3. Existing conditions: a. Location of existing structures on the site. These are all shown on the orthophoto based plans and many of these structures are shown on the remaining plans. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 4 of 12 July 16, 2004 b. Location of watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, and floodplain boundaries as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or as mapped by the City of South Burlington, watercourses, wetlands, rock outcrops, wooded areas, existing vegetation, and other significant natural features on the site. These are all shown on the orthophoto based plans and many of these structures are shown on the remaining plans. Please note that there are no FEMA identified flood ways on this property. C. Topographic contours and profiles as needed. We have prepared profiles of the proposed roads on Sheets C4.4 through C4.7. d. Existing structures and access points on adjacent properties, including those directly across a public street. These have been shown on all of the various plans with a 1 " = 20' scale plan of the improvements at the Allen Road intersection. 4. Development data: a. All means of vehicular access and egress to and from the site onto public streets, and all provisions for pedestrian access and circulation. These points are shown on the grading and drainage plans together with the paths plan prepared by Land -Works. b. One set of preliminary plans, elevations, floor plans, and sections of proposed structures showing the proposed location, use, design and height of all structures, roads, parking areas, access points, sidewalks and other walkways, loading docks, outside storage areas, sewage disposal areas, landscaping, screening, site grading, and recreation areas if required. Plans shall also show any proposed division of buildings into units of separate occupancy and location of drives and access thereto. This is required for any structure other than a single family unit. Information on the proposed footprints for the various single family, duplex and triplex units is forthcoming from the Architect. C. The location and layout of any off-street parking or loading areas, traffic circulation areas, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes. We have shown a number of off-street garden parking pods and lanes. d. Analysis of traffic impacts, if required by the traffic overlay district and/or the DRB. This is outlined in the previously submitted traffic study prepared by TND Engineering. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 5 of 12 July 16, 2004 e. Lot area in square feet and acres, and lot coverage calculations including building, overall, and front yard coverage. Lot coverage calculations are not possible just because of the residential nature of the project. We will provide an estimate for this phase (with certain assumptions, if requested). The overall density requirements for the Southeast Quadrant District must be maintained. The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and sewer lines or of alternative means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. These are shown on the utility plans. g. Cut sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting within the site. A copy of the proposed outdoor street lighting is attached. h. Preliminary grading, drainage, landscaping and buffering plan in accordance with Article 13, Supplemental Regulations. LandWorks has prepared the proposed landscaping plan. The proposed grading and drainage is located on those same named sheets. The extent and amount of cut and fill for all disturbed areas, including before -and -after profiles and cross sections of typical development areas, parking lots and roads, and including an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and proposed locations of sediment sink/setting pond and interceptor swales. The intention is to make this a balanced site except for the imported granular materials. The EPSC plans (Sheets C7 series depict the temporary and permanent measures to be implemented for this project. The proposed stormwater management system, including (as applicable) location, supporting design data and copies of computations used as a basis for the design capacities and performance of stormwater management facilities. The City will be copied on all information submitted to the State concerning the stormwater design for this phase of the project. k. Detailed specifications and locations of planting, landscaping, screening, and/or buffering materials. Land -Works has prepared the proposed landscaping plan. The general location of any free-standing signs. Land -Works has shown this on the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 6 of 12 July 16, 2004 M. The location of all existing and proposed site improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls and fences. These have been shown on the civil plans. n. The location of any outdoor storage for equipment and materials if any, and the location, type and design of all solid waste -related facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins. This will be addressed with subsequent site plan application for the proposed multiple unit buildings. o. Location and design of all energy distribution facilities, including electrical, gas, and solar energy. These are shown on the Utility Plans. p. Lines and dimensions of all property that is offered, or to be offered, for dedication for public use, with purpose indicated thereon, and of all property that is proposed to be served by deed covenant for the common use of the property owners of the development. Metes and bounds have been shown for the common areas and proposed public roadways. q. Estimated project construction schedule, phasing, and date of completion. of development. Break ground Summer 2005 with completion of infrastructure in 2006 and full structure build out in 2009. r. Estimated cost of all site improvements. This will be provided. S. Estimated daily and peak hour traffic generation, and an estimate of traffic generation during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. This is outlined in the previously submitted traffic study. t. Finished grades of walls, pavements, and storm drains. These are shown on the Grading and Drainage Plans. U. Detailed plans of retaining walls, steps, ramps, paving, and drainage structures. Detail sheets have been included for any special structures. V. Estimate of all earthwork, including the quantity of any material to be imported to or removed from the site or a statement that no material is to be removed or imported. The intention is to make this a balanced site except for the imported granular materials. Any import of material other than what is necessary for the defined construction improvements will not be allowed without prior approval of the City. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 7 of 12 July 16, 2004 W. Location and dimensions of all proposed water supply, sanitary sewerage, stormwater system, and other utility lines and equipment, including connections to existing facilities. The proposed utilities are shown on the Utility Plans. X. Detailed landscaping plan, including type, size, and location of all materials used and plans for buffer screening and fencing in conformance with Article 13, Section 13,06, Landscaping, screening, and Street Trees. Land -Works has prepared the proposed landscaping plan. y. Locations, types, and cut sheets for all exterior lighting. We have enclosed a copy of the proposed exterior lighting catalog cut. 6. Other: Any other information or data that the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall require for a full assessment of the project pursuant to this article. A. General Standards. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with the 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. Please find attached a summary of the design water and sewer flows for Phase I and for the Master Plan. A letter of allocation from the City will be required prior to the submittal of any applications to the State. 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. The applicant prepare Sediment and Erosion Control Permit application in conformance with submittal requirements for application for "Permit to Discharge Stormwater from Construction Sites". Some of this information is included in the C7 series plans. 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. This has been previously reviewed with Mr. Bruce Hoar and Mr. Brian Robertson Page 8 of 12 July 16, 2004 further supported in the submittal of the traffic study as part of the Master Plan application. 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 applicant is currently appearing before the NRC on these issues. 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. The project respects the view protection corridor and restricted area concepts for this part of the Southeast Quadrant. 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 project has been designed to respect the large wetland bodies and streams that pass through them. A 400' wide wildlife corridor has been provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and Phase 3 (The Groves) as a means of maximizing the contiguous undeveloped land forms in this areas. 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 water distribution system has been designed (at the Master Plan level) to provide ample looping to minimize service disruptions. Water flow and pressures have been discussed with Mr. Jay Nadeau from the Water Department. The street widths have been reviewed with Chief Brent and Mr. Bruce Hoar regarding access and maintainability. The turning radii at intersections and sharp turns, and hydrant locations will be reviewed during the preliminary plat submittal stage of the project. 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 proposed road and utility systems have been designed to extend northerly Mr. Brian Robertson Page 9 of 12 July 16, 2004 to the abutting property in accordance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 proposed road typical sections do represent a departure from the Standards outlined in the Development Regulations but have been reviewed and approved by the Street Department and Staff in support of the previous sketch plan submissions. 10. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project has met the comprehensive plan goals of improved transportation corridors, clustering of development, retention of agricultural production values, protection of natural resources, mix of housing types, affordable housing, and retention of wildlife corridors as further outlined below. B. Southeast Quadrant District. A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant District shall comply with the following standards.- 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. The project has been designed to respect the view protection zone from Spear Street looking easterly while minimizing the proposed impacts to the extensive amount of wetlands on the property. The northeast corner of the property is not proposed for development as a means of furthering the retention of mid -range background open space features. The proposed layout of the residential components proposes a high density clustering of village clusters as a means of maximizing the available open space. 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. This goal has been achieved through the use of a traditional neighborhood design which utilizes narrower than normal streets as a means of condensing the development footprint which allows for greater retention of the natural resources on site. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 10 of 12 July 16, 2004 3. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including streams, wetlands, flood plains, 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 project has retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate Class II wetland complexes. The main body of the Class II wetland fully situated within the Calkins property has been retained essentially in its existing condition except for three stream crossings typically located at the point of minimum impact. The project proposes to re-establish the native species of the area through the phased removal of the invasive species prevalent on this property. 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 property lies amidst a shallow valley draining from north to south and a second valley located in the properties southeast quadrant which drains from south to north. These riparian corridors have been retained in their natural condition except for the proposed roadway crossings. The project has retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate Class II wetland complexes. 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. This project specifically enables a long term commitment to agricultural uses on the property through the proposed lease of the agricultural lands along Spear Street to the Intervale Foundation. This area is ringed with access roads in support of providing a buffer from the agricultural use to the residential use. Most of the prime agricultural soils on the property are on the lowest end of the scale relative to quality. However, the clustering of the project has enabled the retention of over one-half of the mapped prime agricultural soils. 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 Master Plan sheets include the proposed limits of agricultural lands to be retained while also providing a master plan for the reduction in the number of invasive non-native plant species and re-establishment of a more robust native species community. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 11 of 12 July 16, 2004 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. This project specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of creating an east - west transportation link (including recreation paths) across the property with provisions for extensions in the northerly direction. The water main has been designed to enable the same east -west connection from Dorset Farms to Spear Street. D. Preliminary Plat Application. After classification of the proposed subdivision as a major subdivision and within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan, the applicant shall file an application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer. The plat shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to a scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the following information- 1 . Items 1 through 9 in Section 15.5 above. As previously outlined. 2. For applications including commercial or industrial uses or multi -family dwellings, or applications made as a PUD, all information required for site plan review in Section 14.05 (D) of these Regulations. No site plan review components are proposed as part of this application. 3. Plans and profiles showing existing and proposed elevations along center lines of all streets within the subdivision. These are depicted on the C4.4-C4.7 Sheets. 4. Plans and profiles showing location of street pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, manholes, catch basins and culverts. The grading and drainage plans show this information. 5. Plans showing the location, size and invert elevations of existing and proposed sanitary sewers, storm water drains, and fire hydrants and location and size of water, gas, electricity and any other utilities or structures. These are shown on the Utility Plans (C6 series) 6. Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. The proposed connection will be into the existing gravity collection system recently installed on Allen Road. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 12 of 12 July 16, 2004 7. Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. The proposed stream crossings have been left out of Phase L 8. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Development Review Board to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. CEA will provide centerline road layout in the field prior to any scheduled site walk. 9. List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations. These requested waivers are attached. 10. Base flood elevation data for proposed development that contains at least fifty (50) units or five (5) acres, if appropriate. There is no FEMA based flood information for this area. By inspection, the buffers from the stream provide more than adequate separation from the 100-year storm event. This completes our summary of the design and review issues associated with the South Village Master Plan application. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Attachments: Plans (1 full size, 8 reduced to 11"x 17") Preliminary Plan Application Application Fee (Check $15,510) Abutters List Outdoor Street Lighting Cut Waiver Request cc: David Scheuer, Michelle Holgate, David Capen, Rick Chellman, Art Gilman, David Raphael (all with attachments) CA1 Let\01 243\RobertsonPrelPlatLet.wpd CA1 Let\01243\RobertsonPrelPlatLet wpd Permit Number SD- 6 7 - f CITY OF SOUTH BUF LINGTON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Pai-4I R. CALl,11(1/5 , -PO. aOX 8.2, Lyrld6ny1/1e V7T O.SF,S/ PhOhe. 00A - Gam& - 579.3 Fax 60-2 - &,V, - iieo 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) DEtO DArE /2/2-197 Vgl9, -P9. *54-`f55- 3) APPLICANT (Name, availing address, phone and fax #) 5�)L1rH 11L-IAGE COA4A4uAji7-leS 70 -'59LITH vV/,voO6K1 Ari, OuRL-lAm-or✓ VT O5401 PhoIc 50,2 81,_3-R3-23 rclxC 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailingaddress, phone and fax #) DA v1 o 5cNe a,6gZ - 5A t-i E' 3 -1332 s) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS 1840 5PtAR 5T. -')OuTN VT 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) l e-LIO - O/ 84 0. F 7) DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION LLC a) Existing uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 6- - Q0/'C-5 9f faun lid no 16t-7q Cr- In use, W /7 ur�occupl ed s/ r�q/�, �cvn� /u Ous e b) Proposed uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) PHASE / - 04LAC-7E C&vTEF, - 150 RES1,96 7-1/-11_.. L/n/1T5 p4.U- ' l00 `S7u1DEnIT .5ng0GL c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 1,44 (,407LIA1- ?D i5'f11f,167� d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) �%0 t 14el BHT /-lt4x1muN/ FOB ROdxs� 35/ToR 67yr S e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) 3341 u v/7S OF HOuS/nIC? EX/ST1NC7 R 5/fl 1AL- SUILOit&j TO 8Z eoN✓en7, .) -fb 4CcESSo4Y U56 0/Z C00VD1T10NAL.- LlSE (To jet �t7tRM1�cD 0 Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) Nor A ppc ieA BLt g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. 8) WETLAND INFORMATION a) Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? Yes b) If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands or their associated 50' buffers? yes - Me- prQp2sed carirzecfor'road any G 1//11u lo_ita.//aho`l c.)t// C'2oss a- wet/ond and s>rea.tn. 6e. fJlMl l fed c) If yes, this project MUST be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee prior to review by the Development Review Board. Please submit the following with this application: ,1. a site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's Wetlands Map. 2. response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria). 9) LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a) Size of Parcel: 3(?, 8 b) Building Coverage: Existing 1500 square feet 0, O�2, % Proposed square feet o?0 % c) Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc): Existing 31700 square feet G, 04 % Proposed square feet % 2 d) Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only): Existing AIA square feet A!A % Proposed NA square feet NA % 10) WAIVERS REQUESTED a) List any waivers from the strict standards in the Land Development Regulations (e.g., setbacks, height, parking, etc.) that the applicant is seeking Please See cajt ac hecl l tst . 11) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations) $ 1\/4 - R E51 gi l-TI A L- b) Landscaping (see Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations) $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost) 12) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC aH45, l -rO74 L a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out) 11-/58 3.Z20 b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out) /Cod 3a2� c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out) / S S .3,15 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION 5— 40 P 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 15) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE .2o13 16) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the final plat application (see Exhibit A). 3 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of any ledge. ^ SIGNATU OF APPLICANT l SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION` / d I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: LS Complete 11117 ❑ Incomplete Planning & Zoning or Designee 4 SOUTH VILLAGE - ABUTT. � LIST - JUNE 23, 2004 (2 pgs., ) William Stanley 306 South Beach Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mary Pappas 1809 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall 1815 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Vinal 1845 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William Reed 1967 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Littleton Long 1702 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald & Lynn Cummings 1811 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davison 1827 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Shatzer 109 N. Kentucky Ave., Suite Z Lakeland, FL 33801 Harry Stone 29 Rangely Rd. Chestnut Falls, MA 02160 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 306 South Beach Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Lucien & Jane Demers P.O. Box 359 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Shane & Holly Deridder 192 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Janet Farina 1807 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Ayse Floyd 1813 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Barbara Lande 1865 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 James McNamara 211 Killarney Dr. Burlington, VT 05401 Harlan & John Sylvester 51 South Street Burlington, VT 05401 Littleton & Carolyn Long 1720 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Timothy & Jennifer Owens 197 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Matthew & Beverly Broomhall Brian & Carolyn Terhune Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto . 37 Floral Street 35 Floral Street 33 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 1 Michael Bouvier Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. Kirk & Nancy Weed 31 Floral Street c/o MBL Associates 190 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 25 Pinecrest Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Mark & Deborah Fay Bhagwat & Gita Mangla Dirk & Deborah Marek 188 Catkin Drive 195 Catkin Drive 193 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 t.Tohn & Ritika Paul Philip & Darcy Carter Dan Wetzel 191 Catkin Drive 187 Catkin Drive 183 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Anthony & Nancy Bianchi James & Christina Robert Jared & Karen Larrow 29 Floral Street 79 Bower Street 77 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Pasquale & Deborah Distefano Donald and Lisa Anqwin 75 Bower Street 73 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 South Village Master Plan Design Flow Summary June 21, 2004 Wastewater Design Flows Qty Desc. Flow Description Flow School 100 Students x 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD Shool Employees 20 Employees x 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 300 GPD Subtotal 2800 Municipal WW Flow Credit 20% (560) Housing 334 Units x 100% x 210 GPD/Unit = 70,140 GPD Total Design Flows 72,380 GPD Water Design Flows Qty Desc. Flow Description Flow School 100 Students x 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD Shool Employees 20 Employees x 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 300 GPD Housing 334 Bedrooms x 250% x 150 GPD/Bedroom = 125,250 GPD Subtotal 128,050 Low Flow Fixture Credit 10% (12,805) Total Design Flows 115,245 GPD South Village - Phase I Design Flow Summary July 15, 2004 Wastewater Design Flows Qty Desc. School 100 Students x 100% x Shool Employees 20 Employees x 100% x Subtotal Municipal WW Flow Credit Housing 15p Units Total Design Flows Water Design Flows Flow Description Flow 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD 15 GPD/Person = 300 GPD 20% x 100% x 210 GPD/Unit 2800 (560) = 31,500 GPD 33,740 GPD Qty Desc. Flow Description Flow School 100 Students x 100% x 25 GPD/Person = 2,500 GPD Shool Employees 20 Employees x 100% x 15 GPD/Person = 300 GPD Housing 150 Bedrooms x 250% x 150 GPD/Bedroom = 56,250 GPD Subtotal 59,050 Low Flow Fixture Credit 10% (5,905) Total Design Flows 63,145 GPD 21� 3� C CC-, 'SS t 17� cYv) Wastewater Pump Station Analysis South Village Main Pump Station #1 July 15, 2004 Design Conditions Design Flow 72,380 GPD Infiltration : GPD 20% Municipal Credit Total Design Flow 74,780 GPD Average Daily Flow 77.90 GPM Peaking Factor Peak Flow 327.16 GPM Required Storage 18,695 gallons Storage Provided 20,000 gallons Force Main Dia. 6.00 Inches Min. Cleansing Velocity 2.50 FPS Min. Pumping Rate 220.19 GPM Chosen Pumping rate 315.00 GPM Length of FM 1,800,00 feet Friction Losses 12.26 feet High Point of FM 377.00 feet Low elev. in PS 342.00 feet Elevation Change 35.00 feet Minor headlosses 4.00 feet Residual 0.00 feet TDH 51.26 feet Pump Cycle Storage 1,800 Gallons Run Cycle 7.59 Minutes Wet Well Detention Time 23.11 Minutes Pump Efficiency I % Pump Size 6.80 Hp System Curve GPM TDH 300 50.2 330 52.4 350 53.9 400 58.1 Hydromatic SFPX, 8.25" Impeller, 7.5 HP single phase, 1750 RPM. South Village Preliminary Plan Submittal July 16, 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 26.15 General Standard - Planned Residential Developments shall meet the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. Request to waive the following requirements of Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations: A. Minimum right-of-way width for Collector from 80' to 60' - This waiver is required to facilitate the character of a close knit neighborhoods by allowing the buildings to be located closer to the street. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines within the right-of-way. B. Minimum right-of-way width for Private Local street from 60' to (20' for lanes and alleys) - This waiver is required to facilitate the character of a close knit neighborhoods by allowing the buildings to be located closer to the street. Alternates to this waiver would be allowing a zero foot setback from the street and providing an easement from the City to Green Mountain Power to locate the electrical distribution lines within the right-of-way. C. Minimum pavement width for Collector from 32' to (20' at wetland crossing, 28' with parking on one side and bulbouts) - 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 pavement width for Public Local street from 30' to (18' at wetland, 26' with parking on one side, 24' with no parking - 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. E. Minimum pavement width for Private Local street from 30' to (26' with parking on one side, 24' parking on one side with single loaded lots or low density, 20' no parking, 18' crossing of wetland, no parking). - This South Village Request for waivers Page two July 16, 2004 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. F. 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. G. Minimum radius of curves for Public Local street 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. H. Minimum radius of curves for Private Local street from 300' to 120' - The intent is to utilize smaller radii with a 20 mph design speed within the neighborhood as part of the traffic calming techniques in support of the creation of livable neighborhoods. 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. J. Minimum tangent length between curves for Local Street from 100' to 50' - With the implementation of multiple traffic calming techniques, the need for excess distances between horizontal curves for the driver to perceive and react to the change in direction of the roadway will be reduced. K. Minimum distance between centerline offsets for local streets from 200' to 150'. With lower design speeds and a street grid pattern that eliminates large queuing distances at intersections, the need for the traditional distance between intersections can be reduced. South Village Request for waivers Page three July 16, 2004 L. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 300' to 150' for Public Collector roadways (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 42 mph to 25 mph). 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. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 150' for Public Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph).- 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. N. Minimum vertical (stopping) sight distance from 200' to 125' for Private Local Streets (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph).- 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. O. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Collector from 500 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph).- With a reduced posted speed and ample traffic calming measures to ensure reduced speeds, the need for a safe stopping distance for a higher speed road can be reduced. P. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Public Local Streets from 300 to 275' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items J through L. Q. Minimum horizontal (corner) sight distance for Private Local Streets from 300 to 225' (corresponds with a reduction in the posted speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph). - Similar issues to those outlined in Items J through L. South Village Request for waivers Page four July 16, 2004 Southeast Quadrant District Section Title Description & Reason 6.503 Development Restrictions - In the Southeast quadrant District, all requirements of Article XXV governing lot size, density, frontage, and setbacks shall apply. The request is to waive the following requirements: 25.00 Table 25-1 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements - The following wiavers 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 Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 40' - C. Single Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' D. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 42%. E. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 61 %. F. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10'. G. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to (10' to 5' for rear lanes). H. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF per unit to 3,600 SF. I. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Local Streets from 85' to 60' J. Multi -Family Lot Front Frontage on Collector Streets from 100' to 60' K. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 20% to 50%. L. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 40% to 65%. M. Multi -Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10. N. Multi -Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 5'. 25.10 Additional Requirements for all Districts 25.103 New arterial and collector streets, as designated by the Planning Commission, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 25.101 and 25.102 and the minimum lot requirements of Section 25.00. Request is to waive the 50' front yard setback in favor of a 0' setback on the portion of the roadway system connecting Allen Road to Midland Avenue which the Comprehensive plans calls for this to be designated a collector roadway. This request is made in support of the goal to create a greater interaction between the buildings on both sides of the street and to create a greater level of 'friction " between the automobile and the pedestrians as part of the traffic calming measures proposed within this project. William D. Countryman Environmenial.Assessment & Planning 868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663 Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX: (802) 485-8422 wdcenvAtogether. net lui211& _ ►1� lu To: Dave Marshall, PE From: Aft Gilman, Errol Briggs Date: 4 June 2004 Re. South Village Wetlands, for City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations Under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted 12 May 2003, a project that will impact wetlands must be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee. Submittals to the Committee include 1) a wetland delineation of the entire property and 2) a response to criteria in Section 12.02 E of the Regulations. 1) We have reviewed the map of the delineations and believe that it is accurate. Following initial concerns that our 2001 delineations missed some areas, we re -delineated certain areas, and have reviewed the delineations in the field with personnel from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Vermont Wetlands Off=, and with Dori Barton of A.rrowwood Environmental. We believe that that there is now general concurrence that the wetland boundaries are accurately portrayed. 2) For response to Section 1202.E (Standards for Wetlands Protection), each standard is given below with our response: (1) Consistent with the purposes of the Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged The South Village project has been laid out with avoidance of wetlands in mind, and specifically avoids the large central wetland and the forested swamp on the eastern property boundary. The requirements of the City to have a through road, however, necessitates crossing the major wetlands in two locations. Encroachment into the 50' buffer zones designated under the Vermont Wetland Rules has also been minimized. (2) Encroachment into Class 11 wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determinatirm (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3). below RECEIVED JUN o 7 2004 CEA, Inc. An application for a Conditional Use Determination will be submitted to the DEC. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB uponfinding inding 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 storefloodwaters adequately; The flood storage capacity of the wetlands on this property is significant and is primarily related to the large central wetland. The capacity of the small Class III wetlands is not significant individually, nor, in our estimation, in the aggregate - being altogether much less than the large central wetland. Encroachment into this wetland is limited to crossings; these will be adequately culverted to avoid impounding waters; furthermore, the various stormwater controls will serve to slow the flow of water into the large wetland. (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards. It is our understanding that all stormwater control measures will be undertaken outside of existing wetlands, i.e., the creation of Stormwater Treatment Trains. These are intended to filter out sediments, sequester any toxicants or pathogens, and uptake nutrients. Therefore, there will be no diminution of capacity of the wetlands to cleanse waters, which is a recognized function of these wetlands. We observed, and will note for the record, that following heavy rains, the stream through the wetlands runs cloudy, even though the entire area is fully vegetated - an indication of natural erosion of the clay soils. (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values ident f ed in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment and/or other mitigation measures. The small Class Three wetlands were found to be significant primarily for water -quality maintenance, and as noted above, we believe the proposed stormwater treatment, which is quite innovative, will suffice to minimize or offset any impact to this function. The large, contiguous Class Two wetland was found to be significant for numerous functions and values, which we discuss individually here: 1) Stormwater storage - the storage capacity of the wetland will not be diminished 2) Water quality through trapping of sediments, toxicants, and pathogens - the capacity of the wetland will not be significantly diminished, and with the stormwater treatment in place, there should be little or no additional input 3) Water quality through uptake of nutrients - we would note that the main wetland is dominated by lake sedge which is very well suited to uptake of nutrients; there should be no impact 4) Fisheries - we do not believe the- wetland is significant for fisheries although there may be minnows in the manmade pond; the stream channel is ephemeral and only suitable during a portion of the year. We believe there would be no impact to this function 5) Hydrophytic vegetation - the forested swamp along the eastern edge of the property is likely a significant area for hydrophytic vegetation as a community, but no development is proposed within it or within 50' of it. Otherwise, we have not identified any significant hydrophytic vegetation, but have indicated that we will revisit one wetland locale later this summer to determine if a species of bedstraw (Galtwn) observed there is a rare species (it was unidentifiable when observed in 2003). If so, then we would advise Retrovest that a slight project redesign should be undertaken to avoid the location. 6) Wildlife - we refer you to the studies of Dr. Dave Capen in regard to wetland -dependent wildlife. '} Recreation - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function 8) Education - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function 9) Erosion control - as generally construed, this wetland would not be significant for this function SOUTH VILLAGE WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT Prepared by David E. Capen, Ph.D. Certified Wildlife Biologist Research Professor, University of Vermont June 2004 Introduction This report provides a record of field studies conducted to document wildlife occurrence on the proposed South Village project site in South Burlington, Vermont. The specific purpose of this study was to survey the site frequently during winter, spring, and summer months, 2002, to document use by wildlife and to assess habitat for wildlife. In winter, observations focused on detecting and identifying tracks left by mammals. In spring and summer, surveys featured birds. Occasional visits throughout 2003 and 2004 have supplemented the initial surreys. South Village The Retrovest Companies plan to build a series of innovative neighborhoods in South Burlington, Vermont, using design concepts reflecting historic Vermont settlement patterns. Known as South Village, the new community will be situated on a 220-acre property on the east side of Spear Street at Allen Road. Currently, the land includes a substantial acreage of fallowed agricultural farm fields dominated by non-native agronomic grasses and forbs, and areas that are being reinvaded by shrubs and saplings; a large central wetland area; mixed forests and pine plantations; and a forested wetland. Except for the forested wetland (an unusual example of a Calcareous Red Maple -Tamarack Swamp that also support a number of species characteristic of acidic wetlands) the land supports a typical diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat found in many areas of South Burlington and surrounding towns. Wildlife Surveys Methods Field surveys were conducted systematically from January -July 2002 to document use of the South Village property by mammals and birds. Surveys for mammals consisted of locating and identifying tracks in snow. Tracking was conducted during 13 visits from 18 January to 2 April 2, by Tina Scharf (M.S. Wildlife Biology, Univ. of Vermont). The winter of 2002 was not one with abundant snow, but nevertheless 11 surveys were conducted on snow. Bare -ground surveys were done on two occasions to find other animal sign, such as scats and runways. Most surveying was done by following north -south and east - west transect lines. Animal tracks also were followed on occasion to determine movement patterns, with a special interest in determining if and where animals moved onto and off the property. Surveys for bird species were conducted done primarily in late spring and early summer, when breeding birds are most conspicuous, although sightings also were recorded in winter and early spring while surveying for mammals. The majority of bird species were found on five trips to the property between 24 May and 15 June. Tina Scharf also conducted survey for birds, accompanied on one day by Ernest Buford, a local expert in bird identification. Additional visits to the site to observe wildlife have been made (D. Capen) in April 2003, June 2003, December 2003, and April 2004. Results —Mammal surveys Tracks were detected for 13 species of wild mammals on the 13 days when tracking surveys were conducted (Table 1). The Eastern cottontail was the most consistently abundant mammal, and was recorded on all 13 surveys. Red fox tracks also were recorded during all surveys. Coyote tracks were seen on 12 of the 13 survey dates. For these three species, it was common to note that three or more individuals had left tracks in the snow. Other predatory species detected included long-tailed weasels, an ermine, and a bobcat. The ermine and bobcat were detected only once, but the long- tailed weasel had been active prior to four survey dates. White-tailed deer tracks were not found regularly throughout the winter, but their tracks were common and widespread in late winter and early spring, when weather was uncharacteristically mild, and snow cover was inconsistent. There is evidence from runways, scats, and buck antler rubs that deer occupy the property most of the year. Winter food may be lacking, however, because there is very little woody understory in the forest. There also was evidence --bark stripping on small red maple trees --that moose have been present in the past, and one set of fresh moose tracks was observed in late spring. Small mammals, including Eastern cottontails, meadow voles, white-footed mice, gray squirrels, red squirrels, eastern chipmunks, moles, and shrews, appear to be plentiful on the site, even though some of these species were not represented by track counts. These species obviously support the small and mid -sized predators mentioned above. The property is part of the home ranges of at least two red foxes and perhaps three coyotes. It was common to see their tracks throughout the property, sometimes even quite close to —but never crossing-- Spear Street. Beds of two coyotes were found in the northeastern corner, but no dens were found. One or two bobcats had visited the property on one survey day. No place looks like a characteristic den site for bobcats within the South Village property, so it is assumed that the area is a part of a bobcat's extended territory. A raccoon was seen during spring bird surveying, but no tracks were found in the winter. No sign was found of skunks, flying squirrels, woodland or meadow jumping mice, or woodchucks; but it is likely that they do exist on the property. Bats are not present in the winter, but probably could be found in the summer. Table 1. Results of tracking surveys for mammals on South Village property, 2002. Numbers indicate evidence of at least that many animals. Species Survey Dates 18-Jan 21-Jan 25-Jan 28-Jan 5-Feb 9-Feb 12-Feb 15-Feb 18-Feb 28-Feb 19-Mar 21-Mar 2-Apr Masked shrew 3 Eastern cottontail 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Eastern chipmunk 1 Gray squirrel 3 3 1 1 Red squirrel 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 White-footed mouse 1 1 1 1 Meadow vole 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 Coyote 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 Red fox 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 Long-tailed weasel 3 1 2 2 Ermine 1 Bobcat 2 White-tailed deer 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 House cat 1 1 1 Results —Bird Survevs Fifty-seven species of birds were observed during observation periods that ran from January through July 2002 (Table 2). Observations during winter, however, were incidental to searching for mammal tracks. Sixteen species seen or heard during winter included three species —mallards, red -winged blackbirds, and American robin —that were present because of the mild winter. The remaining 13 bird species would be expected to occur on the site throughout the year. During the breeding season, May -July, 54 species were detected on the site. Most of these are birds that might be found nesting in one of the habitat types on the South Village property. Exceptions are alder flycatcher, rusty blackbird, white -throated sparrow, and purple finch, species that normally nest farther north, or at higher elevations, and were likely seen while on migration. Several other species require large trees or dense forest for nesting and probably find nest sites in the mature forest east of the boundary of South Village property. These species include red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, great - crested flycatcher, scarlet tanager, and ovenbird. Other woodland species include Eastern wood -pewee, great -crested flycatcher, northern flicker, ruby -throated hummingbird, American crow, blue jay, black -capped chickadee, tufted titmouse, white - breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, veery, wood thrush, and Eastern towhee. Grassland species included field sparrow, song sparrow, savannah sparrow, brown - headed cowbird, eastern meadowlark, killdeer, and bobolink. Shrubby habitat is preferred by species such as yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, brown thrasher, northern cardinal, and chipping sparrow. Several species were present because of wetland habitats: willow flycatcher, red -winged blackbird, common grackle, swamp sparrow, and mallard. The wetland areas, in combination with abandoned pastures attracted two northern harriers, which were seen on 13 June, 2002, but not on subsequent visits to the site. In April 2003, Canada geese and an American bittern were observed on or near the small pond on the property. Geese were observed again in 2004, but the bittern was not observed again, either in June 2003 or April 2004. In mid -April, 2003 and 2004, visits to the site were made at dusk to document use of the shrubby fields by American woodcock. At least two different male woodcock were observed in their courtship flights during these visits. ble 2. Birds observed during winter, spring, and summer, 2002, on South Village property. Species ---------------------------------------------- Winter/Spring___________ Spring/Summer_______ Mallard X X Red-tailed hawk X X American kestrel X Ruffed grouse X X Wild turkey X X Killdeer X Mourning dove X X Barred owl X Northern harrier X Black -billed cuckoo X Pileated woodpecker Northern flicker X Ruby -throated hummingbird X Great -crested flycatcher X Eastern wood -pewee X Eastern kingbird X Willow flycatcher X Tree swallow X Alder flycatcher X Barn swallow American crow Blue jay Black -capped chickadee Tufted titmouse White -breasted nuthatch Brown creeper House wren Veery Scarlet tanager Wood thrush American robin Gray catbird Brown thrasher Cedar waxwing Red -eyed vireo Yellow warbler Common yellowthroat Ovenbird Northern cardinal Chipping sparrow Eastern towhee Field sparrow Savannah sparrow Song sparrow Swamp sparrow Bobolink White -throated sparrow Red -winged blackbird Eastern meadowlark Rusty blackbird Common grackle Brown -headed cowbird Baltimore oriole R 10 X European starling X Purple finch X American goldfinch X House sparrow X X Discussion The South Village property offers a mix of habitat types for wildlife, despite the detrimental effects of recent agriculture practices on the structure of natural communities. The acreage is a diverse mix of wetlands, shrubs, and forest stands of different ages and species. It is clearly a mix of communities in transition. What were pastures only 10-15 years ago have now succeeded to brush, and could become forested in another 15 years. The white pine forest on the property appears to have become established naturally during a rest from grazing or as a result of low -density grazing. The virtual absence of natural understory vegetation in the white pines suggests that grazing may have occurred as pines became established on the site or, alternatively, that soil compaction from previous grazing has prevented a dense understory of native species from becoming established and has favored a number of invasive exotic species. A diversity of mammals and birds was documented on the South Village property. None of the species detected was a surprise, because all are common in habitats of this type in suburban areas of the Champlain Valley. No species found is listed as Endangered or Threatened in Vermont; indeed, all but the rusty blackbird are common. The Natural Heritage database maintained by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife shows that the upland sandpiper, a Threatened species, was found on or near this property about a decade ago. This is an easily observed species and one that many bird watchers seek in the proper habitat, yet there have been no recent reports. The grasslands on the South Village property are no longer sparse enough to attract the Upland Sandpiper. When this species used this site, fields were still being grazed by cattle, which produced a sparse, patchy condition preferred by this bird. The South Village property remains as one of the most substantial parcels of undeveloped land in the Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington. But, these acres have rapidly become isolated from some of the other undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. The west boundary of South Village abuts busy Spear Street and increasingly dense suburban develop west of Spear Street. It is unlikely that any significant movements of mammals to and from the property occur to the west. To the north, the western half of the boundary is adjacent to some small fallow fields that mix with residential properties. But, the eastern boundary blends into a large, 100+ acres, patch of mature forest that also forms most of the eastern boundary of the property and likely serves as a reservoir for many of the wildlife species detected on the South Village property. North of this forested area, however, is now a large golf course and surrounding residential development, so wildlife movements in this direction are quite limited. The southern boundary of South Village abuts some fallow fields, residential property, and wetlands along the Spear Street side of the property. This open land extends for about 2500 feet before intersecting Barstow Road. On the eastern portion of the south boundary, large, residential lots predominate. At the southeast corner of South Village, one finds a funnel-like feature of vegetation types where wetlands, open fields, and woodlands converge. This corner, until recently, likely was the point of greatest ingress to the property for those wildlife species that have large home ranges and might disperse from extensive areas of undeveloped land to the east of Dorset Street. However, the area of connecting habitat between South Village and areas east of Dorset Street, which includes the Shelburne Pond natural area, has been thoroughly dissected by an extensive housing development, Dorset Farms. Thus, the South Village property, and the adjacent forest to the east have been progressively isolated from surrounding areas that formerly shared their undeveloped character. This area is not yet an "island" of habitat for wildlife, but roads and housing developments have almost surrounded the property and usurped travel corridors for wildlife. Scattered patches of forest and open fields, interspersed with houses and driveways, still exist south and southeast of the South Village property, but even these areas are bounded by roads with increasingly heavy flows of traffic. Impact of South Village Development on Wildlife Habitat South Village proposes to establish more than 300 housing units, yet % of the 220- acre property will remain in a natural state or part of a small, working farm. Indeed, the plan for ecological restoration should assure improvement of the condition of all habitat types, except perhaps the amount of shrubland, which is temporary stage in the transition of fields to forest. Most importantly, the forests and wetlands on the eastern portion of the property will be left largely undeveloped, but will be restored to a more natural condition. The only housing proposed for this section of the property is in the low quality (i.e., low diversity of plants species and habitat structure) white pine forest, adjacent to existing development of Dorset Farms. Certainly, South Village will be busy with people and their activities, but most species found today on this property have already adapted to humans and their activities, and are quite common in suburban areas. One of the unique aspects of the South Village proposal is the plan for ecological restoration of natural communities on undeveloped parts of the property. The restoration plan is being developed by Applied Ecological Services (AES), a company that is widely respected for such work. The plan is described below. The ecological restoration program for South Village seeks to encourage plant communities, dominated by native plant species, that resemble the structure and spatial patterns of natural communities found on this land before recent agricultural uses. The term restoration is used to mean that the existing vegetation systems will be enhanced through active management or that existing degraded vegetation will be completely replaced with native plant species. Other goals are to stabilize soils, hold nutrients on the land, and manage stormwater runoff from the existing site, and future development as an important asset and resource. These measures can enhance the quality of habitat for wildlife, even though the extent of wildlife habitat will be reduced. The restoration plan is comprised of two periods. The remedial period involves the major tasks such as brushing buckthorn from the forests, replanting native grasslands, conducting reforestation, and installing the Stormwater Treatment Train system. This period usually lasts 3-5 years. The maintenance phase of this program includes perpetual tasks done annually to maintain and enhance the ecological systems. Such activities might include prescribed burning and noxious weed management. The conceptual restoration plan was developed from the natural resources assessment, while at the same time integrating the development intent, with its recreation and open - space component, and the Stormwater Treatment Train for stormwater management. An outline of major restoration tasks is as follows: Forests and Savannas A diverse understory vegetation will be restored in the forests. This will be done by seeding, plugging, brushing, and prescribed burning. Invasive shrubs and saplings of buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, boxelder, and other noxious or invasive plant species will be removed, allowing ample light to the ground to encourage growth of ground cover vegetation. Some forest areas, now dominated by undesirable and invasive tree species, will be converted to native species. Finally, dense white pine stands will be thinned to allow hardwood regeneration to occur and native understory vegetation to be reestablished. These practices will enhance, considerably, a portion of the property that now lacks vertical plant diversity that is a key to a diverse wildlife community. 2. Conversion of Old Farm Fields to Native Grasslands Parts of the followed farm fields now growing in agronomic grasses and weeds will be restored to native grasses. The existing weedy vegetation in these areas will be eradicated using selective herbicides, followed by preparation of soil, then seeding and plugging of native plants. Prescribed burning and other methods will be used for maintenance of the native grasslands. Although native prairies probably were never present in Vermont, grasslands have become part of the Vermont landscape. A number of grassland bird species are in serious decline in the Northeast and are featured in conservation activities that promote grassland management. The South Village site could contribute substantially as a sustainable habitat for some of these species. 3. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Most of the small wetlands that will be retained in the development are within upland settings and will be restored by planting and managing the areas as diverse sedge meadows, and various other native wetland types. Existing drained wetland areas that border the large wetland area will be restored, where these areas fall within buffer areas. Patches of reed canary grass, stinging nettles, and cattails will be reduced, and the sites will be enhanced by addition of native species. These areas also will be managed with prescribed burning and other methods. Wetlands are among the most manageable of wildlife habitats, and it is well known that wildlife productivity, including enhanced species diversity, can respond to active management. 4. Stormwater Treatment Train Stormwater management is a critical concern in any development. Here, we propose to integrate native and ornamental landscaping treatments combined with some engineering strategies to effectively manage the volume and quality of water within and departing the property. The Stormwater Treatment Train (STT) is a series of linked landscape elements that begin to manage water as soon as precipitation hits the ground, and throughout its tenure on the property. The goal of the STT is to reduce the volume of water leaving the land as surface runoff (through infiltration, evaporation, and evapotranspiration), to reduce the rate at which the remaining volume leaves the land by holding the water in microdepressions, routing it through native grasslands, forests, wetlands, and ornamental landscaping designed to hold, and beneficially utilize the runoff. The benefactor of this volume and rate management for stormwater is increased quality of water leaving the uplands. 5. Landscaping Most open space in the South Village property will emphasize native landscaping using the same native species proposed for the larger project restorations. Lawns and ornamental landscapes are envisioned to be a necessity in some areas. Native landscaping in yards, if any, will primarily be focused within backyards and perhaps as an ornamental formal landscape (at the discretion of the homeowner in front and side yards around homes) in other locations of the yard. The project team will encourage use of native landscaping in as large an area of the development as possible even in yards to reduce mowing, irrigation, fertilizer and other contaminant loads generated by the development. South Village and Act 250 Criterion 8a of Act 250 states that development "shall not imperil significant wildlife habitat." Significant wildlife habitat is defined as that habitat important to the continued existence of a population or species. "Habitat" is often defined as the place where a species lives. It is usually characterized by site conditions (e.g., wetlands vs uplands) and by plant communities and structure. Habitat may also include a reference to space (e.g., a species such as the pileated woodpecker requires 200 acres for a breeding territory). Significantly, habitat should be viewed —especially in the context of Act 250— as being species specific. Thus, many different species find habitat on the South Village property because the area offers diverse habitat conditions. It is unlikely that habitat for any of these species will be lost, as a result of development. The amount of space available for wildlife will be reduced, however, perhaps resulting in lesser numbers of some species, but certainly not posing a threat to the continued existence of a population or species. The Retrovest Companies is committed to a unique plan of ecological restoration on this property that should be a substantial mitigation for loss of acreage available for wildlife_ Memorandum in Su)Port of Request for Waivers To: Ken Braverman From: Chester "Rick" Chellman, P.E. Date: 7/31/02 Re: Request for Waivers -South Village, South Burlington, Vermont As a more walkable, neighborhood -scaled community, the concept of South Village and many of its goals and objectives embodied in its design find support - both explicit and implicit- in the State and local planning legislation and regulations. In fact, the City patterns the purposes of its regulations very well with the State enabling legislation, which is where this memorandum will commence. Act 200, Vermont's Planning and Development Act (The Act) is the enabling legislation that provides the City with the authority to prepare and implement its Comprehensive Plan, its Subdivision Regulations and its Zoning Ordinance. As such, several of the provisions of The Act provide a relevant backdrop for South Village, and the following rationale for waivers from certain provisions in the City's regulations.' The Act sets forth several criteria and goals relating to the development of land and public planning documents. The Act notes as general purposes that land should be developed so as to promote- "public health ... comfort... (and) good civic design." The Act further seeks to protect "residential, agricultural and other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic. ,2 Finally, The Act notes that it "shall be used", in pertinent part, to: " maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers," specifically including the encouragement of "intensive residential development... primarily in areas related to community centers" as opposed to "strip development along highways. ,3 South Village has been planned in a manner that is wholly consistent with these broad criteria. In order to achieve these goals, and other goals more fully enumerated below, South Village is hereby proposed as a Planned Residential Development so that it will afford an opportunity to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land. 4 I See: "Section 102 Statement of Purpose", in the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations; Chapter 1, B "Authority" in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and "Purpose" in the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations. 2 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a). 3 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 (c). 4 Section 26.15 of the City of South Burlington Zoning Ordinance As a form of development that is implied in the local and State-wide goals, but also as a form not fully contemplated in several of the City's land use regulations South Village is also requesting a series of design waivers pursuant to Section 6.607 of the Zoning Regulations that will be necessary to successfully achieve these goals. A general overview of some of the design philosophies, the specific waivers, and the underlying rationale for their approval follow below. Street Design: Relevant History and TND Design Streets form one of the most fundamental divisions of land; the design of streets is critically important for both neighborhood function and the movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists.5 The details of the streets in South Village form a critical part of the overall makeup of the project. Before detailing the specific waiver requests, some additional information is required. The design of streets, and in particular streets that are predominantly residential in character has been undergoing significant change in recent years. In 1992 the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) first recognized that "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) was different from conventional "subdivision" design (CSD): in fact it has further been acknowledged that many design criteria that are appropriate for auto -dominant subdivisions are not appropriate for neighborhood streets where a higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists are expected to be found. The ITE established a committee to pursue the goals of identifying the design distinctions between TND and CSD projects and prepare a document establishing a different set of criteria and design philosophies appropriate for TND street design. This effort, including an approximate two-year peer review process, culminated in the adoption in 1999 of the ITE's Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Guidelines). The Guidelines note in the Introduction the following: Street design involves the design of some of the most important, and most used, public spaces. While always true, this is especially so for TND design where the designers' perspectives are broadened to include the divergent needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, motor vehicles and the street's relationships to 5 In 1992, hurricane Andrew destroyed vast areas of southern Florida CSD, such that no buildings or other above ground improvements remained. The author of this memo worked with a team of other volunteers who attempted to re -plat the "sprawl" into neighborhoods. This was found to be impossible without a wholesale taking of all properties due to the layout of the streets. adjacent and future land uses, and many factors must be compared, considered and decided in order to develop the final design solutions.6 Designers have also inquired recently into the origins of many current CSD street design requirements. Research has shown, somewhat surprisingly today, that the genesis of many current CSD street design criteria came about in the 1950's when the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO, the predecessor agency to today's AASHTO) civic defense committee's determination that all streets- including residential- should be designed to accommodate evacuation before, and cleanup after the nuclear war that was expected to occur.7 One particular problem that this design intent introduced was streets wide enough to accommodate very heavy equipment for the expected cleanup process; when the streets are devoid of such equipment, however, they are usually too wide for the more prevalent automobiles and the autos often end up traveling at speeds that are not appropriate in neighborhoods.$ As a result, many communities today, South Burlington included among them, are investigating "traffic calming" as a means of dealing with speeding cars. Streets that are appropriately designed at the outset, however, usually do not require traffic calming measures. The streets proposed for South Village have been designed and laid out to encourage such a balance among all of the users of the street: motorists and non -motorists. This is further in keeping with provisions of The Act which again notes that it "shall be used" to provide safe transportation systems and that "highways... and other means of transportation should be mutually supportive, balanced and integrated."9 Few would argue with the intent to "balance" all of the users of a street. When it comes to details, however, some of the conflicts with CSD become apparent. On a local residential street, the design speed of the street is often not considered or prescribed, but it is implicit in certain criteria such as minimum centerline radius_ The Subdivision Regulations require minimum centerline radii of 1000', 500' and 300' respectively for Arterial, Collector and Local streets. These radii equate to design speeds of 45 mph, 37 mph and 30 mph respectively.10 Vehicular Speed, Safety and Walking While motor vehicle speed is important in all neighborhoods, it is particularly important in a TND project: 5 Traditional Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC October 1999, page 2. Street Design- Design Intent History and Emerging Concepts, Chester `Rick" Chellman, Urban Land Institute, Land Development, Spring -Summer, 1995, page 14. 8 Ibid, page 16. 9 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24. §4302 ( c ), 4. 10 Assuming no superelevation. With superelevation the implicit design speeds are higher. The desired upper limit of actual motor vehicle speeds on TND streets is approximately 20 mph (29.3 ft/sec). This speed allows the creation of the safest streets for a TND or other pedestrian enhanced neighborhood. Because a vehicle's kinetic energy, sound, and the difficulty of seeing the driver all increase dramatically with vehicular speed, speeds at and below speed 20 mph are also the speeds which are generally the most pleasing aesthetically for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian perceptions are also very important; it has been noted that it is actually the "feeling of being unsafe, the experience of a certain threat emanating from traffic" which ends up dedicating streets to primarily vehicular travel and discouraging pedestrian traffic." Data and analyses also show that pedestrians' perceptions may be grounded in kinetic realities because of the substantial differences associated with pedestrian injuries when vehicular speeds exceed 20 mph. Research has shown that pedestrians are usually not seriously injured when hit by a car moving at a speed of less than 20 mph (30km/h) at the time of impact; "if impact speeds are between 20 and 35 mph (30 and 55 km/h), injuries are usually serious, while at or above 35 mph (55 km/h) they usually endanger life or are fatal".12 7 Motor vehicle accident reconstruction analysis techniques provide another indication of the likely degree of injury associated with vehicle speed at the time of impact. The results of the actual analytical formula used to approximate what is terms the "abbreviated severity index", or AIS, are depicted below-, an AIS of 6 indicates a probable pedestrian fatality. Vehicle Impact Speed vs. Pedestrian Injury (initial impact only) 8.0 — AIS 6.0 Severity 4.0 _ (6=fatal) 2.0 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 Impact Speed (mph) 11 Street Design: Design Intent, History and Emerging Concepts, Ibid, page 16. 12 ITE Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, p. 64 Finally with respect to vehicle speed, the time required for a driver to perceive a need to stop, decide to stop and the actually stop a moving motor vehicle is a three -step process. The first two steps of this process have been abbreviated below as "reaction", with "braking" indicating the distance a car will slide after the brakes have been applied. j Reaction & Braking Distances v. Speed 350' 300' 250' 200' 150' 100' 50' 0' - ❑ Braking ❑ Reaction 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Vehicle Speed (mph) I Vehicle speeds of 30 to 35 mph are not unusual in and near CSD projects, as can be seen above and in the previous chart the much greater energy associated with higher vehicle speeds is a serious matter. The perception of danger associated with such streets diminishes the "walkability' of such streets. On the other hand, streets such as TND streets where moving vehicles are a balanced part of the street- on equal levels of importance as bicyclists and pedestrians- walkability increases, as does actual walking, which in turn increases the probability of a more healthy neighborhood due to the increased walking. The Surgeon General's Office website estimates that in 1999, 61 % of US adults were obese and that daily walkinlq would be a great aid to reducing that percentage and improving overall health. s Where a TND project such as South Village is actively promoted as more pedestrian friendly, certain reasonable expectations are created in the minds of prospective residents and visitors. 14 It is incumbent on the design team to assist in meeting those expectations and walkability is certainly one such expectation. 13 http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calitoaction/fact_ whatyoucando.htm 14 See, for example, "South Village" project booklet prepared by the Retrovest Companies, sheets 3.6-8, 14, 16 &17 The street elements proposed for South Village have been proposed as they are to promote and enhance walkability while at the same time accommodating reasonable vehicular use_ The comprehensive plan states that it is a goal of the city to "improve and expand all modes of transportation....with equal access for all income levels and abilities."15 To effect this goal requires special attention to pedestrians, who are often forgotten in the design process. While the City's street design standards do include sidewalk specifications, the definition of "street" in the City's Subdivision Regulations does not mention non -vehicular use at all.'s Seniors, children and others who cannot drive are disenfranchised by any environment that is motorist -predominated or ill -served by transit. It is unfortunate to note that in many CSD projects, even able bodied adults drive to areas where they feel it safe to walk. The net effect of a motorist -dependent environment is hobbling to both drivers and non -drivers. TND design allows the possibility of non -motorist travel and the replacement of some vehicular trips with non - vehicular trips. Good neighborhood design can produce less automobile travel. Studies in California comparing new "traditional" neighborhoods with direct street connections to conventional suburban subdivisions with curvilinear street patterns and cul-de-sacs, found that daily VMT could be as much as 50 percent lower, and CO emissions more than 40 percent lower than CSD design." The City has acknowledged the desires to "promote walking and bicycling... to minimize complete dependence on the automobile for local circulation".18 TND design specifically promotes these goals through detailed design measures. Street Width-: Rights of Way and Travel Surface A TND street network provides more connectivity than a standard CSD dendritic layout. IN a CSD project the cul-de-sacs feed the local streets that feed the collectors, and then the arterials. By collecting and focusing traffic, the larger streets quickly become auto -dominant and both unfriendly and unsafe for pedestrians. Conventional CSD planning also predicts the need to widen roads as traffic increases over time. 15 City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, April 16, 2001, page 8. 16 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. section 103. 17 Calthorpe Associates. "Transit -Oriented Development Impacts on Travel Behavior," In Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection. 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1992 18 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Ibid, Chapter VII, Transportation In addition, since most CSD streets are not constructed to invite and enhance pedestrian travel, residential buildings are typically set back from the street which practice in turn underscores the auto -dominant nature of that environment. In a TND neighborhood, the space between buildings on opposite sides of a street is planned as an "outdoor room" where the buildings enclose the space so as to enhance the streetscape. Many TND zoning ordinances preclude any building setback and require instead front lot "build -to" lines that place buildings at the street right of way, or along a fixed, short distance therefrom.19 With large buildings, larger streets may be enclosed to create this outdoor room effect; for residential buildings, as proposed here, it is important that the overall width of the area planned for streets is not too wide. The City's street design standards are good examples of typical suburban dendritic street standards. However, just as the ITE determined a few years ago, these standards are not appropriate for TND design as they do not allow pedestrian -scaled streetscape to be created in a residential neighborhood. TND streets in neighborhoods such as South Village, except connector streets, typically do not function as independent "lanes" of travel. Rather, TND streets usually, and s proposed here, act as spaces where buildings are at or near the edges (typically with a front porch), then a sidewalk/dooryard area then a street travel space where bicyclists and parked vehicles are typically found nearer the sides and moving motor vehicles are found near the center. To design for the continuous opportunities for completely freely -flowing vehicles (as is the case with 10 feet and wider travel lanes), creates situations where most of the time passenger cars - far and away the predominant vehicle- will travel at speeds greater than are desirable for nearby pedestrians. AASHTO has recognized the functionality of narrower streets- even in CSD projects- noting that "[t]he level of user inconvenience occaisioned by the lack of two moving lanes is remarkably low in areas where single-family units prevail_"20 AASHTO also notes that in many residential areas streets are typically twenty-six feet in width, with this dimension affording two seven -foot parking lanes and a center twelve -foot travel lane, where [o]pposing conflicting traffic will yield and pause on the parking lane area until there is sufficient width to pass." yield streets are termed "yield streets." For South Village, the connector street is proposed to have a 26' wide travel surface with unstriped parking allowed on one side. 19 See, for example, TND Zoning Ordinance, Dade County, Florida. 20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Washington, DC, 2001, Page 396. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, lbid, page 396 Waivers If the City, through its Planning Commission, agrees that the goals of South Village as are somewhat enumerated above, are in keeping with its own goal to "strive to encourage well planned residential development" in this area, then TND streets standards must be allowed in a TND Neighborhood. Such a decision would be in keeping with the waiver provisions of the Subdivision Regulations due to the "special circumstances" presented with this TND proposal, that are "in the interest of public health (and) safety".22 The following are the specific street -related waivers: Collector Street: There is one street in South Village that could be termed a Collector. The following requests pertain to that street: • Right-of-way width 60', • To require a travel pavement width of 26'; • Designate this street in South Village as a "connector' street, • To waive setback criteria for lots on connectors; and • To require design and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour. Local Streets: Most of the Streets in South Village are local streets: • Right-of-way width 50', • To require a travel pavement width of 24'; • To waive setback criteria for lots on local streets, • To require minimum centerline offsets of 150' between local streets • To require two -legged tee intersections between local streets; • Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" streets, and • To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour. Lanes: South Village proposes some "lanes" that will afford one-way access to homes and sites facing small parks and greens. For these lanes, the following requests are made: • Right-of-way width 35', • To require a travel pavement width of 18% • To waive setback criteria for lots on lanes; • Designate these streets in South Village as a "TND" lanes, and • To require design and posted speeds of 20 miles per hour. Rear Lanes: South Village proposes some "rear lanes" that will afford additional access behind some homes and sites. For these rear lanes, the following requests are made: • Minimum right-of-way width 20', • To require a minimum travel pavement width of 14"; 22 Subdivision Regulations, Ibid. Section 513.1 • Designate these rear lanes in South Village as a "TND" rear lanes; • To require design and posted speeds of 15 miles per hour. As noted previously, the enabling Act seeks to protect "residential, agricultural and other" areas of the State from "the invasion of through traffic." 2 These requests would further that goal and the City's own goals to "encourage innovation in design and layout, and (the) more efficient use of land"24 . These requests will also facilitate a more compact village -scaled community by allowing buildings to be located closer to each other, as well as preserving larger contiguous areas of open space while reducing environmental impacts, including a decrease the volume of stormwater. Finally, these requests will allow the creation of a new TND neighborhood in Vermont. In a summary sense, "modern" development is represented below by the upper part of the diagram, while TND development is schematically indicated below. One can insert most any land use in the upper part of the diagram, e.g. homes, offices and shopping. Since there are seldom any real walking connections available, every possible trip involves the use of an automobile, and that in turn places a great demand on the "collector' road that then needs to distribute those auto trips. 2 3 Vt Stat. Ann. title 24, §4302 (a). 24 Zoning Regulations, lbid, Section 26,15 The upper part of the diagram also represents, in schematic form, most of what has happened in terms of development in the US since the Second World War. There are, however, a number of newer projects nationwide that are building new neighborhoods that emulate the more walkable neighborhoods of the past. In the lower part of the diagram, one can imagine many older Vermont communities, of Portland, Portsmouth, New Hampshire or any number of other places where walking, biking and transit are all made more possible by the mix of uses, provision of sidewalks, and interconnected streets. South Village emulates not all, but many of the best attributes of historic neighborhoods. It also could be Vermont's best chance at a new and real model of a "historic settlement pattern of [a] compact village" as the Act states and was noted previsousiy. Models are important, because banks and developers generally do not want to take chances or to try something new, even where "new" is actually a repetition of an older form of development. APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW Permit Number MP - U y - 0 All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being deemed incomplete, and a delay in scheduling for the Development Review Board. Owner of Record (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) R4u1 R. eCLIkInS P.O. doX Rz, L.y17d0n✓111e , ✓T- o-1-8sl Phone- 809-l0.210 - 5-7 Location of Last Recorded Deed (Book and page #) PEED DATE AZ/1 /97 10. Burl. ,Cal101 Rec . V41Z Y-15V - ys5". S,y�au�ZNt: Z4A/0 A?&Z. Y210io 7 Applicant (Name, mailii 70 .50urH Wi"OosKi address, phone and fax #) t-�gUrH ✓11-446t d04A4uN1rie 5_ LLe— ✓k 4• &94.'Are, ray ✓7- ,vhuae- itg 063 ,U2 3 �Fctr au 863 /33? Applicant's legal interest in the property (i.e. fee simple, option, etc.) G* iorl /o Joumit Se - Contact. person (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) .,4;1, ,5QU-hHY/c.446K C'6M111unl1r1L-S LLO 7U . qury Win e7f7.< kj . Project street address: I8Ff0 SPEq,Z SZ: 5b &U2 L/Nfi 7D Al _ Y% Tax parcel ID # (Assessor's office) /G 4/0 " 0 / 84/0 - F Project description Existing uses on property (please describe sizes of each separate use, if applicable) .-Z(o61-1 c?cres of fw'1n land nc longer Ir7 use, Wd JJr1 odcuare.d single Faftilig ouse.. Proposed uses on property (please describe the size or number of units and nature of all proposed uses) 7MD177OA1,44. AlEil7N80ki"D D8.�cnr oF' cro m 355 4GpalIEs, b—CUDIAJ6 5'11V6L.: r'.4t41,-Y, C017A6t5 ond7awivHo.Mt,f j' PRl✓47E-,,cy0o,- AjvD A COMHuNIrY Saliwiyci ro -54�Ayg-r 35•ACQE C"o t44ikiTY,3UP ORrr-D f-49AI. Maximum total number of residential units and/or square footage of uses to be developed, including any existing units and/or uses to remain: 3311 9-65/DEnn/AL 11Nrr5 24446 4 loo 61UA� rr 6nVOOL.. APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW Maximum proposed building height (if applicable) a--/z StCr/0n/ 3.07 •Dvnd 6. Proposed phasing (please describe the number of total phases and, if applicable at this time, the number of units or SF of uses to be proposed in the first phase): PHASE / • YIL.446C Ce"reg MAX/MUM /50 Uv/rs P405 gnrlooL_ 'PH,45E .Z THE R/UbE A1-4 X/MUM 7`1 UN/TS P1445 ,3 7H6 6ROYE MAX/MuN 7-2 4/N/75 P14,15e 4 -F-IEtOS EDcnE MA)CIMUN/ S9 41AV/r5 MASTER PLAN UMBRELLA CRITERIA Total acreage of involved property(ies) �7 4. 8 Total acreage of first phase for development (if known at this time) 30.9 Total number of residential units and/or SF of all uses requested 33AI 96510,t�)VT IAL_ UAPT.S /00 Sru,Ot'n/T .SCHoac.- (Sf. uaknOWn) Existing impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) 3. 900 6f• 0.04 % Maximum proposed impervious coverage, entire site (SF and %) `/D Maximum existing building coverage, entire site (SF and %) /500 sf. Q.02 % Maximum proposed building coverage, entire site (SF and %) -20 tl/c, Estimated number of existing PM peak hour vehicle trip ends 10 Maximum proposed number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends 3y6- Existing or proposed encumbrances on property (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) exu5hno /50'w/de ckcfrica/caurner-1f at SOuiN en/y OF PKonCftrY 7D 11,694QMr 6A5 SY57c,,4S Proposed extension, relocation or modification of municipal facilities (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, stormwater, etc. — please describe briefly NON• SAaffARY COL.C�C71OW SY579M (PR//4r9 llUr1P STArio*is) 7D COLL6-rrIaW SYSTEM aM ALI-EN &ADD Wg764 SUPPLY CONnI,6 7/VVC? AT DmLer FAR,,is WITH 'FLUWU CdNNE^TIa" ?D DaKSET 57IZtEl , Owners of record of all contiguous properties, and mailing addresses (please attach list) Estimated final project completion year -?o 13 APPLICATION for MASTER PLAN REVIEW Plans and Fee Please submit plans showing the information listed in Section 15.07(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Five full-sized and one reduced size copy (=X17) of the plans must be submitted. The application fee for Master Plan review is $500, plus $io clerk's fees ($510). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this applicn has been s 'tted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Signature of Property Owner Please do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION I have reviewed this application and find it to be: ET COMPUTE , ❑ INCOMPLETE — �� ( 714� & ning or designee Da e APPLICATION CHANGES Item 12/2002 6/25/2004 Notes Developer Applicant The Retrovest South Village South Village Companies Communities, LLC Communities, LLC organized 5/6/03 Wetland Delineation Mistaken Expanded Being checked substantially Zoning Ordinance As it existed in 2002 Major revisions Open Space Located to maximize Located to maximize aesthetic enjoyment opportunities for creating continuous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas Located to preserve and enhance open character and natural areas Natural Wildlife habitat and Resources corridors identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy must be protected. Allowed 265 > 300 number of units claimed by developer Other Development No School School Number of Accesses 1 2 New access is located to Spear Street immediately across road from someone who cannot attend this meeting due to lack of notice. Item 12/2002 6/25/2004 Notes Through Road Extended Midland Avenue Moved north May be back at extended Midland Avenue Phase III (The Grove) Proposed Proposed Supposedly deleted Street Configuration Changed throughout S:\Client Matters\72835\Miscellaneous\APPLICATION CHANGES CHART.doc CIVIL ENGINEERING NJIN�o 928 Falls Road P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 June 23, 2004 Mr. Brian Robertson, Planning Associate City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: South Village PRD Calkins / South Village Communities, LLC Master Plan Application Dear Mr. Robertson: Phone: 802-985-2323 Fax: 802-985-2271 E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com South Village Communities, LLC is pleased to submit this Master Plan application for the South Village residential neighborhoods proposed to be located off of the east side of Spear Street near Allen Road. This application seeks to lay out basis for this traditional neighborhood design. To assist the Development Review Board in evaluating this application, we have summarized the components of the application in a format consistent with the requirements set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Master Plan Application The Master Plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings, with all dimensions shown in feet or decimals of a foot, drawn to scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, showing or accompanied by the information listed below. The applicant shall submit complete preliminary site plan or preliminary plat applications consistent with the Master Plan application for any area or phase for which approval is sought simultaneously with the Master Plan. Sheets S1.2 through S1.3 specifically provide the 1" =100' scale detail required in this section of the regulations. Please note that the lots have not been dimensioned as part of the Master Plan application consistent with the previous discussions with City Staff. The intent is to identify the street grid, general limits of residential development areas and maximum number of units in each phase and overall for the project. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 2 of 9 June 23, 2004 We have prepared the following plans in support of this requirement. South Village Master Plan - Index of Plans Cover Sheet Proiect Master Plan S1.0 Master Plat Plan S1.1 Master Plan Phasing S1.2 Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100' North S1.3 Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100' South S1.4 Master Plan Phasing 1" = 100' East C1.5 Proposed Site Plan Existing Conditions C2.0 Overall Orthophoto Plan C2.1 Existing Conditions Plan C2.2 Delineated Soil Mapping Plan E2.3 Ecological Existing Conditions C2.4 View Corridor Plan C2.5 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 C5.1 Stormwater Master Plan a. Accurate and updated Sketch Plan data. The plans have been updated to depict additional detail on the natural resources on this site and the reconfigured development areas. b. The name of the proposed Master Plan or an identifying title. The South Village project name is included on all of the plan sheets. C. Name and address of the land surveyor and plat designer. The responsible design party, whether it be the surveyor, engineer, land planner, traffic consultant or landscape architect has been shown on the plans. d. The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. The names of the abutters and the one subdivision of note (Dorset Farms) adjacent to the project site have been shown on Sheet C2.1 (Existing Conditions Plan). Mr. Brian Robertson Page 3 of 9 June 23, 2004 e. An overall plan for the property indicating the following: The locations and total combined area of the property(ies) proposed for subdivision and/or site plan phase, either in conjunction with the initial Master Plan application or in the future, specifying which area or areas are currently proposed for subdivision or development. Sheets S1.1 through S1.3 depict this information. ii. The location and total area of the property(ies) currently proposed for subdivision or development that are to be deeded as perpetually open spaces, and which areas proposed to be left open are subject to future evaluation within the parameters of the Master Plan. The Survey Plat (Sheet S1.0) depicts the overall property boundaries while Sheets S1.1 through S1.3 depict the approximate limits of the proposed open spaces. iii. The location, total area and nature of any public amenities or facilities other than buildings proposed either in conjunction with the initial Master Plan application or in the future, specifying which features are currently proposed for development. The public amenities proposed for the project include new streets (Sheets T4.1 through T4.5), public water (C5.0), sewer (C5.0) and storm drainage collections system (C5.1). No separate public land holdings are proposed. iv. The maximum impervious coverage proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. This is shown on Sheet S1.1 (Master Plan Phasing Plat). V. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or number of dwelling units proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. In order to provide flexibility in the development of each of the four phases of the project, a specific maximum number of units has been proposed for each phase while being limited to an overall maximum of 333 units as outlined on Sheet S1.1. The breakdown of the density calculation is shown as follows: 226.79 acres Total Property Acreage Mr. Brian Robertson Page 4 of 9 June 23, 2004 2.61 acres Acreage in Shelburne 223.18 acres Acreage in South Burlington 1.2 Maximum Number of Units per Acre 267.8 Maximum Number of Units 25% Maximum Market Rate Housing Density Bonus 334.7 Maximum Number of Units with Density Bonus 334 Number of Units Proposed + 100 Student School 33.4 Number of Affordable Housing Units Required vi. The maximum number of vehicle trip ends (VTEs) and associated parking proposed for the property or properties subject to the Master Plan. These are depicted on Sheet S1.1 as derived from the traffic study prepared by TND Engineering. vii. The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property or serving the property. There is a 12" water main within Dorset Farms which is to be connected to while the wastewater will be discharged to an existing gravity sewer collection system on Allen Road. These are depicted on Sheet C5.0. viii. The location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas and their relationship to existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts and parking areas on surrounding properties. Sheets T4.0 through T4.5 show the proposed street hierarchy and typical sections for the proposed public and private right-of-way improvements. ix. Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on USGS datum of existing grades and also of finished grades. Contour intervals closer than five feet may be required by the Development Review Board in order to properly evaluate specific aspects of the project, such as storm drainage, landscaping, etc. The existing condition plans depict a 2' contour interval. Some sheets have retained the original 5' contour interval for purposes of clarity. x. A complete survey of any tracts to be subdivided completed by a licensed land surveyor. The boundary survey for the parcel is shown on Sheet S1.0. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 5 of 9 June 23, 2004 xi. The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the DRB to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. The proposed north and south street intersections have been staked in the field and have been designed to intersect existing driveways or undeveloped lots on the west side of Spear Street. xii. A list of waivers the applicant desires from these regulations. A list of the proposed waivers is attached with the application. A. General Standards. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions and Master Plans are: 1. Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with the 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. Initial discussions with the City were that with the recent improvements to the Water Supply storage capacity that there is adequate water supply capabilities to provide the 115,000 GPD of design flow. A review of the unallocated reserve capacity at the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility shows that it has adequate capacity to receive the 72,000 GPD of design flows. Permit applications to the State will proceed in conjunction with the development of each phase of the project. 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. The applicant will prepare a Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan and permit application in conformance with submittal requirements for an application for "Permit to Discharge Stormwater from Large Construction Sites" which is administered by the State of Vermont with each specific phase of the project. 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 Mr. Brian Robertson Page 6 of 9 June 23, 2004 staff or consultants. The traffic study prepared by TND Engineering outlines the recommended improvements to mitigate any impacts from the project. 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 project has been designed to avoid impacts to the majority of the wetlands, streams and associated buffers. A 400' wide wildlife corridor has been provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and Phase 3 (The Groves) as a means of maximizing the contiguous undeveloped land forms in these areas. The attached wildlife study summarizes the existing conditions and the recommended mitigation measures to reasonably mitigate any impacts. 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. The project has been designed to embrace the clustering concepts from the Comprehensive Plan. The Sketch Plan review by the City reconciled any issues associated with the restricted area mapping and the proposed project limits. 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 project has been designed to respect the large wetland bodies and streams that pass through them. A 400' wide wildlife corridor has been provided between Phase 2 (The Ridge) and Phase 3 (The Groves) as a means of maximizing the contiguous undeveloped land forms in this areas. 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 water distribution system has been designed (at the Master Plan level) to provide ample looping to minimize service disruptions. Water flow and pressures have been discussed with Mr. Jay Nadeau from the Water Department. The street widths have been reviewed with Chief Mr. Brian Robertson Page 7 of 9 June 23, 2004 Brent and Mr. Bruce Hoar regarding access and maintainability. The turning radii at intersections and sharp turns, and hydrant locations will be reviewed during the preliminary plat submittal stage of the project. 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 proposed road and utility systems have been designed to extend northerly to the abutting property in accordance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 proposed road typical sections do represent a departure from the Standards outlined in the Development Regulations but have been reviewed and approved by the Street Department and Staff in support of the previous sketch plan submissions. 10. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project has met the comprehensive plan goals of improved transportation corridors, clustering of development, retention of agricultural production values, protection of natural resources, mix of housing types, affordable housing, and retention of wildlife corridors as further outlined below. B. Southeast Quadrant District. A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant District shall comply with the following standards: 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. The project has been designed to respect the view protection zone from Spear Street looking easterly while minimizing the proposed impacts to the extensive amount of wetlands on the property. The northeast corner of the property is not proposed for development as a means of furthering the retention of mid -range background open space features. The proposed layout of the residential components proposes a high density clustering of village clusters as a means of maximizing the available open space. Mr. Brian Robertson Page 8 of 9 June 23, 2004 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. This goal has been achieved through the use of a traditional neighborhood design which utilizes narrower than normal streets as a means of condensing the development footprint which allows for greater retention of the natural resources on site. 3. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including streams, wetlands, flood plains, 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 project has retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate Class II wetland complexes. The main body of the Class II wetland fully situated within the Calkins property has been retained essentially in its existing condition except for three stream crossings typically located at the point of minimum impact. The project proposes to re-establish the native species of the area through the phased removal of the invasive species prevalent on this property. 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 property lies amidst a shallow valley draining from north to south and a second valley located in the properties southeast quadrant which drains from south to north. These riparian corridors have been retained in their natural condition except for the proposed roadway crossings. The project has retained a 400' wide wildlife corridor along the eastern portions of the site in accordance with Staff's requests as a means of providing a connection between two separate Class II wetland complexes. 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. This project specifically enables a long term commitment to agricultural uses on the property through the proposed lease of the agricultural lands along Spear Street to the Intervale Foundation. This area is ringed with access roads in support of providing a buffer from the agricultural use to the residential use. Most of the prime agricultural soils on the property are on the lowest end of the scale relative to quality. However, Mr. Brian Robertson Page 9 of 9 June 23, 2004 the clustering of the project has enabled the retention of over one-half of the mapped prime agricultural soils. 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 Master Plan sheets include the proposed limits of agricultural lands to be retained while also providing a master plan for the reduction in the number of invasive non- native plant species and re-establishment of a more robust native species community. 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. This project specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of creating an east -west transportation link (including recreation paths) across the property with provisions for extensions in the northerly direction. The water main has been designed to enable the same east -west connection from Dorset Farms to Spear Street. This completes our summary of the design and review issues associated with the South Village Master Plan application. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 985-2323. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer \dsm Attachments: Plans (1 full size, 8 reduced to 11"x 17") Master Plan Application Application Fee (Check $510) Traffic Study Wildlife Report Waiver Request cc: David Scheuer, Michelle Holgate, David Capen, Rick Chellman, Art Gilman, David Raphael (all with attachments) \\Dave\wLec\oiaa3\MascervzonertsonMascer.wpa William Stanley 306 South Beach Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mary Pappas 1809 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall 1815 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Vinal 1845 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William Reed 1967 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Littleton Long 1702 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald & Lynn Cummings 1811 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davison 1827 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Shatzer 109 N. Kentucky Ave., Suite Z Lakeland, FL 33801 Harry Stone 29 Rangely Rd. Chestnut Falls, MA 02160 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 306 South Beach Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Lucien & Jane Demers P.O. Box 359 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Shane & Holly Deridder 192 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Janet Farina 1807 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Ayse Floyd 1813 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Barbara Lande 1865 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 James McNamara 211 Killarney Dr. Burlington, VT 05401 Harlan & John Sylvester 51 South Street Burlington, VT 05401 Littleton & Carolyn Long 1720 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Timothy & Jennifer Owens 197 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Matthew & Beverly Broomhall Brian & Carolyn Terhune Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto 37 Floral Street 35 Floral Street 33 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Michael Bouvier 31 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mark & Deborah Fay 188 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 John & Ritika Paul 191 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Anthony & Nancy Bianchi 29 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Pasquale & Deborah Distefano 75 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. c/o MBL Associates 25 Pinecrest Drive Essex Jct., VT 05452 Bhagwat & Gita Mangla 195 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Philip & Darcy Carter 187 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Christina Robert 79 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald and Lisa Anqwin 73 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Kirk & Nancy Weed 190 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dirk & Deborah Marek 193 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dan Wetzel 183 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Jared & Karen Larrow 77 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 No Text P14 \ 1 1 \ 1 1 I I 1 1 I l , 1 1 \ \ 01 \ '-� -- ------ Z--------------------- ------------------- I tz l\ � °1"t e� pI.,tLTI O0 n. ne t � � � ► ��,� pub' pg . 4 ! FA AN(l LA - , .r.r ..r .0 14 f Jo, Nm7r 1 hr h. �O NV C pSs e E MATCH SHEET 67 I I cs s� e � ozst ' o0R5 I= rn OOOfi7 �m � R (� 0296 f OOR50 y��- 0296 O� 0254 00043 8 = O0 0 4 n 029 fi �. cc E 0�38 R a 9 0 0p78 w k 0296 n7oa 77 1 0254 oR 00 77 00 82 0254 0079 tl j .. R III 0254 !p OORfi4 00035 o � k 0570 OIA75 - 0254 p 02_54 p00a9 00254 ORS 045t R 4 R 19602, m OOOOSa7 OOo06 _.0211 m R•• R 9 ms, O 0020R08 0002028 R 0 27 �R k R9 2 I 28 296 11 0296 ^ 00R25 0296 OR14 t DOR24 C ZZ Hof 0001 S RRR 0296 k RR j OOR23 296 0296 000_11fi 02 OR� 117 0296 — 08ppR21 00 R 0 0254 20 R 0296 00019 __--� — .� 0296 OOR20 -- t 0254 ♦� a 00R18 : n 02037 �w 00035 R32 p4 ��5} 0024 00V16 /1 2 = JI _ '•.. 00 30 �� 20 0678 j +v 0026 296 ` 0254 00 2 R OR26 Y 1 1 0254 p/+ 1 ppR21 j 06711 s 00Q14 i R s 00025 0678 ^ R(123. 7 y (123 . 00021 �v 'a.. > L ' R 0020519 / ' 0676 I s' 00019 n R y 0678 + y OOR I +,4 0020R17 ' 0254 •4 f 00010 R g ... 00015 '�1j O� 00015 0678 ROO10 4 000008 ,•' 0018 a O9i' ♦ 0254 \ R t� 00011 / 9 R R 5 p0673� 0297 +ar d 0pR 6pp78 p9 •per 4 ; ..4 7 / 0678 0297 OOR003 `\Ot ; i 067 w Y►P P.-p— *r• EnformfltiOII & �/ To7M HOD20LIIr �� PYOPl= U211 70Y ASHY LOT Mm�C ar: V1si1.81SZAYSOII ��--� i'" POLITY OR OTnaL •' Y Y-O-V BOUNYY. MOT A P20P1RSS Lam ROAD CODE NUMBER Services �•�_ LUM UKK OR 097C UL LOT IBM NM A PYOP=ff LUC STREET ADDRESS TArB D= HOLRMAYY TYPE 50. RiD.w. 1 1 1 I 1 I r , 1! 1 I 11144 II � o U r s�{{ap 1 e(4— `fwl� � \ V \ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1` � 1 / 7 s 0570 OIR20 01630 60' R.O.W EV-0OI; , , , , / / , , / r✓ 057 017721 t / \ / \-.0 725 / n/ N / / / j 0570 01775 I RR / 1 / / MATCH SHEET 77 —L ` YCJIi 1:1200 too 0 10O No ]0g �THm YIP Ib !O: A4 4T m'"m CXL7. R 6 90Y 70 $ 0� 1Gi[3821C11 0ONVIMA M 02 or LW"L IIII.L 00497 i 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT A 00 00232 O 0.0c lhcm6�t Traffic Impact Study Addendum "South Village" Proposal: Mixed -Use; Residential, Agricultural & Educational Spear Street and Allen Road South Burlington, Vermont Addendum June 17, 2004 Prepared for: Mr. David Scheuer, President The RetroVest Companies 70 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT. Prepared by TND Engineering Chester Chellman, P.E. 1270 Route 16 PO Box 388 Ossipee, NH 03864-0440 Telephone 603.539.5999 Fax 603.539.7912 Email cheliman(cDTNDEngineering.com This information is submitted to supplement the Traffic Impact Study dated April 8, 2004. South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum June, 2004 Intersection Sight Distances: The Project proposes three accesses to Spear Street: North, Central (at Allen Road) and South. Civil Engineering Associates measured sight distances at each proposed entry. Sight Distances (feet) Intersection Northerly Southerly North Central South 915 825 750 1500 1260 1250 In order for a driver to stop a moving vehicle, a three -step process ensues of: perception of the problem, reaction (braking of the vehicle), and then the actual stopping of the vehicle. These steps are all summed in what, from a design perspective is termed stopping sight distance. Spear Road is posted at 35 mph (56 km/hr). For a design speed of 40 mph, recommended stopping sight distance is 305 feet.' Recommended sight distances for turns onto a major road at stop -controlled intersections range from values of 130 to 170 feet,2 to 445 feet.3 Sight distances in all cases at the proposed South Village accesses are adequate. At the central site access drive at the intersection of Allen Road, both northerly and southerly sight distances, while adequate on both instances, may be improved by the elimination of existing vegetation. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, , Washington, DC, 2001, Exhibit 3-1 p. 112; hereafter "Policy" 2 Traffic Engineering Handbook, 51h EditioOnlnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1999, Table 11-15, p. 376. 3Policy, Ibid, Exhibit 9-55, p. 665. Page 2 South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum June, 2004 ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Crash data was requested from the VAOT, the City of South Burlington and the Town of Shelburne police departments for the most recent five-year period. The City recently changed computer systems, such that researching crash data before the summer of 2003 has become less computer -based and more difficult to research. A telephone interview with the South Burlington police department determined that, in the time period from July 23, 2003 to April 15, 2004 there were 2 minor accidents and one property damage accident at the Spear Street and Allen Road intersection. VAOT data, available online was reviewed for the period starting January 1997 to December 2001. Wilbur Smith & Associates obtained data from the City of South Burlington data for the period starting January 1998 to December 2002 The VAOT data indicated a total of 10 accidents along Spear Street between Main Street and just south of the Swift Street intersection during the five-year period between 1997 and 2001. Of the 10 accidents, 4 were reported at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection. Data was also secured from the Shelburne police for the Spear/Barstow and Barstow/Dorset intersections. No severe accidents were recorded for the four years searched, while 2 "struck by deer" incidents were recorded, one at each Shelburne intersection. Critical Intersection Accidents AADT Rate Rate Spear & Swift 26 26,442 0.90 0.89 Spear & Allen 9 17,150 0.48 0.99 Spear & Barstow 3 7,400 0.28 1.23 Barstow & Dorset 4 5,500 0.50 1.33 Source Fuss & O'Neill- 3 years Fuss & O'Neill- 3 years CCMPO & Shelburne Police- 4 years CCMPO & Shelburne Police- 4 years Page 3 South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum June, 2004 Note that the Swift and Allen Road intersection critical rates are slightly different from the values calculated by Fuss & O'Neill, due to a new statewide average rate of 0.411 accidents per million miles of travel reported by VAOT this month Queuing Analysis/ Left Turn Lanes. In the report dated April 8, a left turn lane warrant analysis was completed for the site drive at Allen Road. This particular analysis was completed prior to the signal warrant analysis, which determined that a signal is warranted at this intersection. The general standard for a separate left turn lane at a signal is to provide one if left turning volumes exceed 100 vehicles per hour.4 Left turn lanes may also be provided, based on judged need for lower volumes. Here, the AM volumes are approximately 50 left turning entering vehicles, increasing to approximately 80 in the PM peak period. Part of the design considerations include queuing analysis for each approach. At the central proposed entrance at Allen Road, separate southbound left turn entering lane and the westbound exiting left turn lanes were considered and analyzed for queuing to determine the effects of each and appropriate storage lane lengths of each for future conditions. Both the AM and PM future conditions were studied using both Synchro (Highway Capacity Manual techniques) and SimTraffic (micro simulation techniques) modeling programs. Multiple runs in SimTraffic showed that there is no overall benefit to providing a separate southbound left turning lane. The maximum observed queues for southbound left turning traffic in the PM peak period were 164 feet, with average queues being 103 feet for the same movement. With the additional left turn lane, average queues drop to 45 feet for the southbound left, but at the expense of increasing northbound traffic queues. 4 Policy, Ibid p. 688-689. Page 4 South Village Traffic Impact Study Addendum June, 2004 Intersection Details Spear Street/Allen Road Intersection This intersection should be configured so that the westbound roadway conforms with the BV-66 section approved by the City of South Burlington in December, 2002. The westbound left turn lane should be configured to be 75 feet in length, and 10-11 feet in width. Signal Optimization The analysis previously submitted did not optimize the signal timing plans for any of the signals analyzed, to reflect existing and future conditions in the same fashion as with prior studies. Optimization of the Swift Street/Spear Road intersection was analyzed for future PM peak hour conditions, for this Addendum. Presently, this signal has a PM cycle length of 78 seconds; initial review shows that optimal cycle length may be 55 seconds. Future conditions for the existing cycle length shows that an overall intersection LOS C will be achieved, but the northbound left turn movement will operate at LOS F. With optimization, the overall intersection still operates at a slightly better LOS C, but the northbound left improves to LOS E and the westbound through degrades to LOS E. The following pages provide additional detail, the optimized files have "2013 Build -Opt" in the upper left header area of each page. Page 5 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build 06/17/2004 � � f- � *, I # Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r ►`j T t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 10 12 12 10 12 11 16 12 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 75 125 75 0 80 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.935 0.967 Flt Protected 0.993 0.971 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1726 1478 0 1688 1583 1770 1626 0 1711 2041 0 Flt Permitted 0.916 0.570 0.259 0.446 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1593 1478 0 991 1583 482 1626 0 803 2041 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 319 53 70 26 Headway Factor 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.04 0.85 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 328 273 244 346 Travel Time (s) 7.5 6.2 5.5 7.9 Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 141 93 404 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% Adj. Flow (vph) 42 236 512 189 132 53 274 217 165 109 474 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 278 512 0 321 53 274 382 0 109 606 0 Turn Type custom custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 43.0 43.0 0.0 43.0 43.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 55.1 % 55.1 % 0.0% 55.1 % 55.1 % 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.69 0.90 0.09 1.07 0.43 0.26 0.55 Control Delay 20.4 11.6 40.8 5.0 101.1 11.2 13.0 14.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build 06/17/2004 Lane Group EBL "EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 20.4 11.6 40.8 5.0 101.1 11.2 13.0 14.4 LOS C B D A F B B B Approach Delay 14.7 35.7 48.8 14.2 Approach LOS B D D B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 78 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.9 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St t L2 o4 43 s JJ .t Iy T 06 �- Lii 4:3 35 Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build 06/17/2004 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 10 12 12 10 12 11 16 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 150 75 125 75 0 80 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 0.935 0.967 Fit Protected 0.993 0.971 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1726 1478 0 1688 1583 1770 1626 0 1711 2041 0 Fit Permitted 0.916 0.570 0.259 0.446 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1593 1478 0 991 1583 482 1626 0 803 2041 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 319 53 70 26 Headway Factor 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.04 0.85 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 328 273 244 346 Travel Time (s) 7.5 6.2 5.5 7.9 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build 06/17/2004 -• '- t r �- 1 -V Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ' SBR Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 141 93 404 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 42 236 512 189 132 53 274 217 165 109 474 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 278 512 0 321 53 274 382 0 109 606 0 Intersection Summary Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Budd 06/17/2004 -► --* f" -4- '1,-► Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations t r t r t t Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 93 404 Turn Type custom custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 55.1 % 55.1 % 55.1 % 55.1 % Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.69 0.90 0.09 1.07 0.43 0.26 0.55 Control Delay 20.4 11.6 40.8 5.0 101.1 11.2 13.0 14.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.4 11.6 40.8 5.0 101.1 11.2 13.0 14.4 LOS C B D A F B B B Approach Delay 14.7 35.7 48.8 14.2 Approach LOS B D D B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 78 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.9 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St LL Q4 41IJ:_ • 06 L:l 4_: i� Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build 06/17/2004 -,, --* '- t 1 Lane Group EBL EBT' EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4, 4 8 8 2 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MinimumSplit (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 55.1 % 55.1 % 55.1 % 55.1 % Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90th %ile Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 70th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 30th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 16A 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16A 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 10th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR Intersection Summary, Cycle Length: 78 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.9 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 72.2 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 63.4 Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004 ---" --► ---r 4' '- - t /,. l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT " SBR Lane Configurations t in t r t t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 10 12 12 10 12 11 16 12 Storage Length (ft) 0 150 75 125 75 0 80 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.935 0.967 Flt Protected 0.993 0.971 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1726 1478 0 1688 1583 1770 1626 0 1711 2041 0 Flt Permitted 0.914 0.567 0.297 0.480 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1589 1478 0 986 1583 553 1626 0 864 2041 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 340 53 105 39 Headway Factor 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.04 0.85 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 328 273 244 346 Travel Time (s) 7.5 6.2 5.5 7.9 Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 141 93 404 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% Adj. Flow (vph) 42 236 512 189 132 53 274 217 165 109 474 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 278 512 0 321 53 274 382 0 109 606 0 Turn Type custom custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 33.0 33.0 0.0 33.0 33.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.72 0.99 0.10 0.94 0.42 0.24 0.55 Control Delay 19.7 12.8 73.1 5.2 58.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004 4 Lane Group EBL EBT : EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBIL SBT SBR Total Delay 19.7 12.8 73.1 5.2 58.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 LOS B B E A E A A B Approach Delay 15.2 63.4 28.5 10.2 Approach LOS B E C B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 55 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & Spear St Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service E t 02 Lit 33 : ? 06 OR 33s 122s Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004 -• '- - t l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t if t r t t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 10 12 12 10 12 11 16 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 150 75 125 75 0 80 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 0.935 0.967 Fit Protected 0.993 0.971 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1726 1478 0 1688 1583 1770 1626 0 1711 2041 0 Fit Permitted 0.914 0.567 0.297 0.480 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1589 1478 0 986 1583 553 1626 0 864 2041 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 340 53 105 39 Headway Factor 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.04 0.85 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 328 273 244 346 Travel Time (s) 7.5 6.2 5.5 7.9 Intersection, Area Type: Other Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 0I6/17/2004 # fte Group ° U " EBT1' Id 8R \l�fO� 1NBT 'WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 141 93 404 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% 109% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 42 236 512 189 132 53 274 217 165 109 474 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 278 512 0 321 53 274 382 0 109 606 0 Intersection Summary Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations t r t r T t Volume (vph) 36 201 437 161 113 45 234 185 93 404 Turn Type custom custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.72 0.99 0.10 0.94 0.42 0.24 0.55 Control Delay 19.7 12.8 73.1 5.2 58.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.7 12.8 73.1 5.2 58.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 LOS B B E A E A A B Approach Delay 15.2 63.4 28.5 10.2 Approach LOS B E C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 55 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Swift St & SDear St Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service E tL o4 1 OR � OR Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 Future ConditionsPMDHV South Village 2013 Build -Opt 06/17/2004 �--- t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBIL SBT Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 8 2 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) ' 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Yellow Time 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None None None 'None None None Max Max Max Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0, 18.0 18.0 -18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0' 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 30th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 10th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Hold Max Max Max MaxR MaxR MaxR MaxR Intersection Summary� Cycle Length: 55 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 55 Future Conditions 01/15/2004 PMdhv Retrovest TND Engineering C:\My Documents\soburlington\traffic study\2013 PMDHV Build.sy7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPAR'T1VIENT OF PLANNING &ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 3, 2004 David Scheuer Retrovest 70 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, September 7, 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 Encl. SOUTH BU)INGTON RECREATIOn DEPARTMENT 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 846-4108 - FAX: (802) 846-4101 """ "°'°' •. THOMAS HUBBARD, CPRP RECREATION DIRECTOR TODD GOODWIN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TO: Brian Robertson FROM: Tom Hubbard RE: South Village DATE: Sept. 2, 2004 As a follow-up to the presentation at the last RPC meeting from South Village representatives, the Recreation Path Committee has the following recommendations: This link will provide a vital east -west connection from Spear Steer to Dorset Street, and connect the South Village neighborhood with Dorset Farms. The committee recommends that a 10 foot path be built along the north access road from Spear Street into the development, or somewhere in the vicinity of the northern boundary of the development and continue the entire length of Spear Street within the property. The 10 foot path would continue along the southern boundary of the proposed development connecting to the existing path in Dorset Farms. The committee would like to see the path along Spear Street located in the most desirable location to provide views, especially to the west. The path from the northern access road to the middle access road, for example, might run along the east side of the open field in this area rather than adjacent to Spear Street. It is also recommended that recreation path access be provided to the proposed school site. Any path adjacent to streets within the development could be 8 foot width. The committee further recommends that the entire path be built at the same time and not dead-end with phasing of the development. The recreation path would remain open to the public indefinitely. MEMBER: VERMONT RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION Daniel & Marguerite Wetzel 183 Catkin Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 802-660-3117 September 2, 2004 South Burlington Development Review Board C/o Ray Belair 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: MP —04-01 , South Village Communities, LLC, 355 unit PUD, 1840 Spear Street Dear Board Members: Regarding the proposed South Village PUD I would like to submit the following comments. David and Michele Holgate of Retrovest met with over 34 residents of Dorset Farms on August 12, 2004 to present the revised master plan and discuss our concerns. (Homeowners in Dorset Farms were invited to this private meeting by invitations delivered via US mail; All Dorset Farms homeowners are currently being assessed taxes on the common land abutting the proposed developments land). Overall we find the concept of the project acceptable and the willingness of the developer David Scheuer of Retrovest to work with the residents of Dorset Farms refreshing. My summary of the three major concerns of the residents present at the August 12th meeting follows. 1. The necessity of a connector road to Spear Street and resulting increased traffic and speed of traffic on Midland Ave. 2. Dense development in restricted areas with subsequent loss of woodlands and views. 3. The use of affordable housing density bonus points. 1. The necessity of a connector road to Spear Street and resulting increased traffic and speed of traffic on Midland Ave. Residents are concerned that the speed on Midland is already exceeded by many and that a through connection to Spear Street/Allen Road will exacerbate this public safety problem. Dorset Farms has many families with young children that bicycle, skateboard, and scooter on Midland Ave. Many residents feel that this connector road is neither desirable nor required. Residents are concerned about the negative impact of this connector road on the wetlands in the common area owned by all Dorset Farms homeowners as well as negative impact on an important wildlife corridor of the "Great Swamp". This corridor is described in the recent Arrowood Report to the PC. We understand that the city's Natural Resource Committee also opposes this connector road. We strongly urge the DRB and the City to re -consider the necessity of this East- West connector. A gravel gated emergency access road, also usable as a bike path, would be more appropriate. If despite our wishes, the DRB and City insist on having the developer build this connector road, then we respectfully request the DRB require the developer to meet the following conditions: a)- build as narrow a connector road as possible (less then 20 ft wide) b)- speed tables be installed on each end of the new connector c)- speed calming be installed on the already existing length of Midland Rd. d)- a speed limit of 15 mph be established for the connector road e)- the connector road be restricted to local residents only f)- that no truck traffic be permitted on the connector road g)- adequate accommodations for wildlife to cross over and under the road be installed h)- no curbs be installed and vegetation be permitted to grow up to the edge of the road (once annual grass cutting permitted for safety) i)- no salt be used in the winter on the connector road j)- sufficient (at least 3 deep) native confer landscaping be planted on the — 1000 ft South Side of the connector to screen the view of the connector road from Dorset Farms residents k)- no or very minimal lighting be used on the connector to protect nocturnal animal species hunting and mating behaviors Also we would like assurance that the developer will not be permitted to use Midland Avenue for access of construction vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, cement mixers , contractors personal trucks) to the development site. There are too many children in Dorset Farms that bike and play in and around Midland Avenue. Permitting construction traffic to access the site via Midland is `an accident waiting to happen'. In sum should the DRB decide a connector road is a necessity then we look to the DRB to help prevent potential public safety problems and to limit any negative impact to this sensitive natural area. At our August meeting 12 the devoloper has indicated that he will work to mitigate possible impacts. 2. - Dense development in restricted areas with subsequent loss of woodlands and views. Several residents expressed concern that the wooded ridge line to which their lots look out is the planned site for many units (>50). Placing houses in this area will require cutting down several acres of mature trees. (See attached images.) Many Dorset Farms homeowners were sold their homes with the belief that this Ridge would not be developed, per the cities SEQ zoning map which has indicate area as restricted for many years. As adjacent homeowners our preference is for this wooded ridge area to remain restricted and undeveloped as was the original intent of the SEQ zoning map. The few remaing acres of woodland in the SEQ need to be preserved. The city's Natural Resource Committee also recommends that no units be placed in this area as does the Arrowood report. However, if the DRB decides to permit housing in this restricted area we request that the DRB require the developer a) -to limit unit height to 1 '/z story ( 25 feet) for units sited on the eastern side of the ridge facing Dorset Farms b)- not to place any lots directly abutting the Dorset Farms common land, or the wetlands contiguous with our common land, so as to prevent land owners from encroaching on the wetlands and/or clearing existing mature trees c)- to maintain a significant wooded buffer (100ft) and the placement of adequate screening and landscaping (rapid growing native conifer tree/shrub species), on Retrovest property, to mitigate against the lost views to Dorset Farms homeowners. d)- to include language in the master and appropriate sub -association bylaws that prevents homeowners from cutting down mature trees. The developer has indicated that he is also agreeable to protective landscaping. 3. The use of affordable housing density bonus points Without bias to the present developer we respectfully request that as a condition of granting a density bonus for affordable housing, that the DRB require a formal and legally enforceable plan from the developer for administration of affordable units as well as an explanation of how he can meet the calculation criteria, when other developers in SEQ have found it difficult to do so. Current land use regulations permit 1.2 houses per acre in the SEQ. The proposed development is — 226 acres thus 271 houses would be the maximum permissible. However the developer is proposing the use of a `density bonus' for affordable mixed use housing for a total of 334 units. The calculations for what constitute affordable housing are found in Land Use Regulations Article 13.14.13. La "Housing that is owned by it's inhabitants, whose gross annual household income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the county median income, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the total annual cost of housing, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance, is not more than thirty percent (30%) of the household's gross annual income." 80 % of a median income of $60K = 48K 48K x .30 = 14.4 K annual cost of housing Using 7 %, interest, $3.5 k in taxes and $500 /yr insurance a homeowner could afford — $130,000 mortgage 20% down would suggest a total price of — $165,000 The developer has indicated that the expected initial offering price of `affordable' houses will be in the $200,000 range. Houses in Dorset Farms that were built as "affordable" are selling for more then this at present (—$240K). In addition the Land Use Regulations indicate that the criteria for awarding density increases require a plan for continued affordability (Article 13.14 D.c), as well as administration by the "City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any or a bona fide qualified non-profit". Regarding our own PUD (Dorset Farms) we understand that there has been some difficulty enforcing/maintaining the affordable housing condition of the granted permit. If the city is granting a density bonus to the developer for affordable housing, we'd like to be sure that these units remain affordable, particularly when these density bonuses are being applied (directly or indirectly) to development in land that is zoned restricted. We appreciate the developers and DRB's willingness to work with the residents of Dorset Farms to resolve these minor issues. Recently I was in the Act 250 office reading the entire file on the Dorset Farms development. I was amazed at how long it took (1988 to 1998) for Dorset Farms / MLB Associates to receive their final permit. We feel that if the DRB and developer take our concerns seriously such a lengthy permitting period may not be required for South Village. Thank you for your patience. Respectfully, r /� ieI M. Wetzel s s -x 4. i• - DarsFarms.- _ - ._ .... `e t Far � r��s- fM 1- 1 great swamp a,a►r ........................................ ...................................... .................... Qt �-_ 1 Dorset akin lot li _` Farms zoned for development ` ` boundries in red wetlands R s 'l area of proposed units phase 2 town line in pink restricted zone wooded ridge, wetlands and swamp View West to Calkin's Ridge from Dorset Farms - entire viewable length of Ridge is currently zoned restricted - housing is proposed for entire length of viewable ridge y wetlandsµ Wetzel 20040817 t e MEN _ IL " ? c proposed road 1985 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 August 23, 2004 Betsy McDonough, Administrative Assistant City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Ms. McDonough: Thank you for your Notice of a Public Hearing relating to the planned developed of a City within the City of South Burlington! I will be out of state on September 7, 2004. Therefore, I would like to share my opinions with the Development Review Board. My family has lived in South Burlington since 1968. We have lived at 1985 Spear Street since 1971. This Plan, which would dump thousands of vehicles onto Spear Street on a daily basis, is so massive and so out of proportion, that it should be, ipso facto, rejected. However, on the chance the Board may give this application serious consideration, here are my thoughts and comments. For reasons I cannot comprehend, South Burlington's traffic control over the years has been abysmal. A few brief examples, from my little corner of the world which extends from my home on Spear Street to my office on Pine Street in Burlington, are as follows: traffic control at the intersection of Swift and Spear Street had to have been designed and implemented by people who are visually impaired. It has been the source of accidents, and will continue to be so. Traffic control at the new intersection of Eastwood Betsy McDonough, Administrative Assistant City of South Burlington Page 2 August 23, 2004 and Farrell Drives is confusing, complex and convoluted. There will surely be a serious accident there before long. The so-called solution to a perceived traffic problem in the Meadow and Hadley Road area created traffic safety problems elsewhere, and is causing delay and inconvenience for the great majority of the residents and taxpayers of South Burlington. wouldn't be surprised if the City's next move would be to make this area a "gated neighborhood"! While I don't claim any expertise in traffic control, intersection design, etc., there has to be more to it than placing cones, barrels and posts in problem areas. With the foregoing track record, which I am sure other residents in other areas of South Burlington have had similar experiences, I hope you can appreciate my concerns for a development that will turn an already extremely crowded and congested area into Times Square at rush hour. Surely you can do better. i have spoken to several of my neighbors, all of whom have property near the proposed development. They are Jon and Amy Averill, 3958 Spear Street, Harlan Sylvester, 2003 Spear Street, and Robert Foley 4070 Spear Street. They are all unanimous in their opinion that any increase in Spear Street traffic at or near the intersection of Allen Road would create a serious traffic safety hazard, and cause significant congestion and delays. Very truly yours, Alan F. Sylvester Gail Schramm Jane Primm 1971 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 802-863-3865 September 2, 2004 South Burlington Development Review Board C/o Ray Belair 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: South Village Communities, LLC,1840 Spear Street Dear Board Members: This letter is in regard to the proposed South Village. As residents of Spear St. in South Burlington directly west of the proposed development, we would like to share with you our concerns. 1. Environmental This development will disturb unique habitat in our city and a road will cross Class 2 wetlands. Though changes in the locations of some units have been made in recent months, the impact to the wildlife corridor will be substantial. No matter how "low impact" a design it has, the road crossing the wetlands (and its associated underground structure and utility services) will be a barrier and a road -kill hazard to the natural inhabitants of the area, 2. Traffic With this development, Spear Street will be required to accommodate an additional 668 cars (at least 2 cars per household), and that is not taking into account the traffic that will cross town from Dorset and the additional developments proposed on that side of the city. Add to that those residents of Shelburne and Charlotte who already use Spear, and the increase in development in those areas, which will in turn significantly impact the residents of Spear St. in the following ways: A. The proposed traffic signal at Allen and Spear will cause backup of traffic in both directions, causing it to be impossible for Spear St. residents to safely and conveniently turn north out of their driveways. Can the city afford to add suicide lanes to accommodate Spear St. residents? B. Lack of designated turn lanes into the complex in three different sites will cause further slow downs to through -traffic and blockage of driveways. To avoid this it would seem prudent to widen Spear St.; can the city afford that? C. The sheer increase in traffic noise and pollution. 3. Public Safety A. The addition of this many people in a high density fashion is virtually the equivalent of any small town in Vermont. Has any foresight been given to the burden that will be placed upon the city's public services? What is the capability of the South Burlington Police Department, Fire Department and Rescue Services? Will the city not have to increase its resident's taxes or attempt to have a bond passed in order to accommodate this burgeoning development? B. Currently bicyclists and joggers attempt to use Spear St. for the purposes of exercise or actually commuting to work. While a lane exists, it is poorly designed and for anyone who has driven down Spear St. when someone is biking, it is not an easy ride for the biker and a difficult proposition for the driver to safely pass. These residents who attempt to use Spear St. without the assistance of a vehicle will be endangered further by the significant increase in traffic and turning cars. Can the city afford to redesign the street to accommodate these residents in a safe manner? 4. Density The city has Land Use Regulations that permit 1.2 houses per acre in the SEQ. Thus the proposed development on 226 acres would allow 271 units maximum. Although the developer is seeking a density bonus, the calculations for what constitutes affordable housing as per Land Use Regulations calculates out to $165,000.00 per unit, while the Developer has indicated they will be selling units for $200,000.00. The Land Use Regulations indicate that in order to award the developer a density bonus requires a plan for continued affordability as well as administration by the City of South Burlington Housing Authority. We not only request but expect the DRB to require a formal and legally enforceable plan from the developer for administration of the proposed affordable units and an explanation of how they can meet the calculated selling price of $165,000.00 per unit. 5. Landscape Though the above concerns will certainly affect us (the authors of this letter), the proposed southernmost exit from the development will affect us substantially. It is planned to enter Spear St. only feet from our southern lot boundary and our driveway, and directly across from the driveway of the building lot next door, where there will eventually be a home. Currently we have a natural view from our front rooms. With a third Spear St. outlet, we will have head- lights from exiting cars streaming into our home. We request, and expect the DRB to insist, that the developer adhere to the original 300 ft. buffer from Spear St., and that a landscaping plan to offset this concern be submitted for review and public comment. We request the placement of adequate headlight screening with rapid growing native conifer/tree/shrub species to mitigate this. Respectfully submitted, I' WAO,7�� Gail Schramm Jane Primm 0 MEMO South Burlington Planning &Zoning To: Dorset Farms Homeowners Association Dan Wetzel From: Juli Beth Hoover, AIC Director of Planning & ning RE: Notification for South Village Hearings Date: August 24, 2004 cc: Chuck Hafter, City Manager Amanda Lafferty, Esq., Stitzel Page & Fletcher The Department of Planning and Zoning has received numerous differing requests for notification and information related to upcoming meetings of the Development Review Board involving the Retrovest "South Village" project. Consistent with its staff and financial resources, Vermont law, and City regulations and policies, the Department provides public notice of all land development in South Burlington. Citizens interested in the process should take some measure of responsibility for using available sources of information. Consistent with the City's Land Development Regulations and applicable Vermont statute, the Department will observe the following policy with respect to public notice for meetings involving the South Village project: (1) Notice of public hearings (preliminary plat, master plan, and final plat applications) will be published in Seven Days at least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing held by the DRB. Seven Days is issued weekly on Wednesdays, and is free and available at many places of public accommodation throughout Shelburne and South Burlington. Classified and legal notices in Seven Days are also available on the newspaper's website, www.sevendaysvt.com. (2) Both a tentative schedule of meetings and Development Review Board agendas are posted on the City's website, www.sburl.com. DRB agendas are posted on the website on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. (3) DRB agendas are posted, on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, at Hannaford supermarket on Shelburne Road, Gracie's market on Hinesburg Road, the Grand Union supermarket on Hinesburg Road, and in the front window of the municipal office building, 575 Dorset Street. (4) The Town of Shelburne and all abutting property owners of record, without respect to intervening rights -of -way, will receive a letter via first class mail sent out on the day the notice is published in the newspaper. As noted in (1), this will occur a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing. In the event staff are not able to send out the notice via first class mail on the same day the notice is published, the notices will be sent as soon as possible therafter. (5) The Dorset Farms Homeowners Association will receive the same first-class mailing sent to: Dorset Farms Commons Association, c/o MBL Associates, 25 Pinecrest Drive, Essex Junction, Vermont 05452• (6) Individuals who contact the Department of Planning and Zoning personally and ask to be added to the mailing list will be added. With the present list of 49 parties, it costs the City $38 per mailing. Notifying 250 parties by first-class mail would cost the City $120 per mailing. Those who would be willing to receive an e-mail notification instead of mail would help reduce the City's expense. t BuRmi,.ANDERSON MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Lmv Michael l.. Burak° Jon Anderson Thomas R. Melloni° Michael B. Rosenberg' Shane 1V'. McCormack°tr Gateway square • 30 Main Street Post Office Boa 787 Burlington, Vermont 05402.0787 Phone: 802 862.0500 Fax 802 862-8176 e-mail: attorney@,.KlaNel.com °Also admitted in NeN% lurk .Not yet admitted in Vermont •Also admitted in the District of Columhia tAlso admitted in Massaehusctts July 20, 2004 Ms. Lani Ravin, Chairperson South Burlington Natural Resources Commission M- 14 Stonehedge Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: South Village Condominiums Limited Liability Company Dear Lani: This letter asks you to support my clients, Skip and Denise Vallee, in protecting natural resources located in the central area of land South Village Condominiums Limited Liability Company ("South Village") proposes to acquire and develop intensively. In particular, we ask you to oppose any proposal to reduce the protection afforded by South Burlington's zoning to such natural resources including significant wetlands, wildlife habitat and a prominent ridgeline. Skip and Denise asked me to send this letter because they are unable to attend your meeting Thursday afternoon. Thrr PnrtIPQ Skip and Denise Vallee Skip and Denise Vallee own a house on about 25 acres of land located immediately south of the land South Village proposes to develop. The Vallees are good and responsible land stewards. They maintain one dirt driveway to their house, among other reasons, to protect wetlands and to maintain wildlife corridors and habitat in the area. Because they live in the area, the Vallees are especially aware of and concerned to protect the natural resources in the area. These include the one of a kind in South Burlington wildlife habitat on the South Village property that supports such diverse species as bobcats and woodcocks. South Village South Village is apparently one of the so-called Retrovest Companies of which David Scheuer is the President. One such company is formed for each real estate development. Apparently, this is done to restrict the assets available to back up commitments made by each of the Retrovest Companies as for example to protect the environment. South Village claims to be Ms. Lani Ravin July 20, 2004 Page 2 of 3 BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONIP►.c environmentally sensitive. Whether this claim is true or merely a way to leverage approvals for projects that are more damaging than could be approved otherwise remains to be seen. That the latter is likely the case is evidenced by the following: 1. South Village significantly under identified the extent of Class 2 wetlands in the area. This "mistake" was discovered by Dori Barton a wetlands consultant hired by the Vallees. In a memorandum dated June 4, 2004, South Village claims that it "reviewed the delineations in the field with ... Dori Barton." In fact, no such review has been done with Dori. Nor are we aware that "there is now general consensus that the wetlands boundaries are accurately portrayed." Indeed, South Village filings to date present two different wetlands delineations. To resolve this issue, the Vallees would support you in requesting the Development Review Board to exercise its "authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant ...", South Burlington Zoning Regulations ("SBZR'), § 12.02D(3), for your review. Id. at § 12.021)(4). 2. South Village proposes to develop new roads running east and west entirely across the southern portion of its property. In the same way, South Village claims that Spear Street bars wildlife movement to the west of its development, the new road will do so to the south. 3. South Village proposes to construct housing blocking what was identified as one of two wildlife corridors within South Burlington by the South Burlington Open Space Strategy (Map 9) (Attachment 1 hereto). This document locates the wildlife corridor on the west side of the ridge dividing the two prongs of Class 2 wetlands on the south side of the property South Village proposes to purchase. SBZR § 15.18B(3) unambiguously requires that "existing natural resources on each site shall be protected . . . including . . . wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy." Despite this clear language, South Village does not propose honoring this corridor in any way. Instead, South Village proposes to locate substantial housing -- about a quarter of its project -- and a network of several roads across this corridor. 4. South Village proposes to locate one or more other housing pods (Phase 2 comprising 74 housing units) on the ridgeline between these two wetland prongs. Indeed, South Village proposes to capitalize on their location by labeling its Phase 2 "The Ridge". South Village proposes this despite zoning standards requiring that existing natural resources on each site shall be protected including "prominent ridges". SBZR, § 15.18B(3). "The Ridge" is a prominent feature of the area. 5. The network of roads South Village plans to construct across the southern portion of its property crosses what even South Village now identifies as Class 2 wetlands. Presumably, South Village will bridge over the wetlands in at least three places although even this is unclear. South Village makes no provision for Ms. Lani Ravin i .dAK Al�'DERSON & MELLONIrL<: July 20, 2004 Page 3 of 3 honoring the presumptive 50-foot wetlands buffer at these locations, much less the 300-foot buffer requested by the State of Vermont (Attachment 2 hereto). History of the South Village Project South Village first proposed its project several years ago. Since that time, and in response to South Village's requests, South Burlington reduced many environmental standards otherwise prohibiting or restricting the project. These changes allow, for example, the waiver of many zoning restrictions and increased density for affordable housing. Having obtained all the legal concessions it can get, South Village now objects to the literal reading of the remaining provisions. The Opportunities Skip and Denise Vallee do not oppose South Village's proposal per se. They have no objection to the development as proposed in Phases 1 and 4. Development in these areas alone allows South Village 209 units only 58 units less than the 267 units allowed if South Village simply respects the 1.2 unit per acre maximum traditionally available for the southeast quadrant. If it chooses, South Village can locate additional units simply by concentrating housing a little better than it proposes to do in the developable areas of its site. Conclusion We ask the Natural Resources Commission not to participate in reducing again South Burlington's commitment to protecting natural resources. We also ask you to request the Development Review Board to require its own wetlands delineation. Very trul ours, rn nderson JTA�rIm cc: Mark G. Hall, Esq. (attorney for South Village) South Burlington Planning Office South Burlington Natural Resource Committee Members SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jte Tani ravin.doc ATTACHMENT 1 .. �.AL n_ CJ r I LCJ/ LU CJ4 I J. 4 1 OUZ4.34ZIUZ HKKUWWUUV tNV. FAUt e1 Department of Fi Department of PC Department of Er Slate Geologiet RELAISFHVI--E --800- 253-0191 1-000.253.01fly Jan Art Wil RD Mot Re: State of Vermont O RUTING Wlidl lie Parks and Recreation lenlal ConARNWion THE WEARING IMPAIRI~G N EIS DATE. .Voice >TDD t y 27, 2004 1 / �� —Z�> SUSPENDED L� lman and Errol Briggs. m D. Countryman Associates I!-` Boy. 999 ._.....-,...,....�_..,.-�.—.-- ield, Vermont 05663 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES rtment of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION 103 South Main StTeet Building 10 North Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 South Village, Spear Street, South Burlington, Wetlands Project #2001-274 Art and Errol, FAX 802-241-3287 TEL 802-241-3770 Th you ,for meeting with us this month to discuss the project your client (Retrovest) is in the rocess of planning for the above captioned property. While we have not seen any pro Ised plans for the project, we understand that your client will be presentin' g a concept pla o the City of South Burlington shortly. At this time we are providing you with some gen al corrunents that we hope can be incorporated into the concept plan. We ave been aware of this project for a few _years. In 2001, representatives from several dill ent programs in the Agency (me and John Austin, Jodi Shippee of the Natural Heritage Pro am, and Kinz Greenwood, Erosion Control Specialist) had the opportunity to visit this site lith Retrovest representatives. Retrovest was interested in acquiring the property at that tim and was soliciting comments on natural resource issues at the site. After the site visit, sev al Agency staff met to discuss the parcel. These Agency staff made the following ree emendations: 1) that any development on the parcel be clustered along the front of the pro a y, so that the two large wetland complexes on the site could be retained and protected fro development and 2) the plan, be designed to avoid crossing either of these wetlands. The easoning for these recommendations is described below. Du z ig our site visit we observed two large Class Two wetland complexes. One is in the cen r of the property and runs north -south (this will be referred to as the "center wetland") and h.e other is located. along the eastern boundary of the site (the "easteni wetland"). Both of t ;se wetlands are protected by the Vern�iont Wetland Rules. Please note that any activity in aI -lass Two wetland, or its associated 50-foot buffer zone, other than the allowed uses spe lied in Section 6.2 of the Vermont Wetland Rules, requires a Conditional Use Det enination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. According to Section 8.5 of m the 'eront Wetland Rules, a CUD can only be issued if it is determined that the use will hav, no undue adverse impact on protected functions, unless.such impacts are mitigated. Mit ration treasures include avoidance and minimization of wetland impaets. Boti of these wetlands are significant for several functions and values including wildlife hab 3t, 'water quality protection'., flood storage, and erosion control. The eastern wetland is Fiv�ior-,al cirrice:r EJY16;ItrC�ev�.I�.I.rr'I'I']IfS:'���IU�IGf��I�:����lr'��7fIe1C�'ti>t .7U1'ifiSl�UrY CJ i / LtJ/ LCJU4 ID: 4 f tSJL4,�4L1F�1 AHHUWWUUD PqV. PAGE 03 MH G3ilman and Errol Briggs a2 significant for the hydrophytic vegetation function. These wetlands are both located in impaired watershed. Therefore, maintenance of the existing water quality function of 3e wetlands is critical, both during and after construction, The project should be, planned avoid impacts to these valuable wetland resources, and to maintain the integrity of the fer zones, best erosion prevention occurs during the planning stages of a project. This includes ling areas that are likely to erode, providing adequate riparian (that is, strearn and md) buffers, and designing the project construction with the least amount of impact to r resources as possible. This also helps to maintain the hydrology of the site, an �rtant consideration in not causing erosion problems as a result of altered water flows. It Id be noted that this project will require authorization to discharge under the ,truction General Permit 3-9001 (2003). Authorization under the general permit can not anted until the CUD has been issued for wetland and wetland buffer impacts, red on our meeting last week, we understand that your client is proposing an )roximately 300-unit housing development on this property. We are concerned that the istruction of a dense housing development will adversely impact the wetland -dependant dlife that currently depend on the habitat associated with this site. Based on our ervations and those of your representatives, these wetlands are important for waterfowl, iing birds, a myriad of songbirds, raptors including northern harriers, wetland -dependant iearers such as mink and otter and other wildlife. 'Therefore, we. recommend that the units concentrated away from these wetlands. During the Act 250 review process we will ammend a 300-foot buffer zone for both the center and the eastern wetland for wildlife. s buffer distance has been applied to other development projects in Chittenden County t involved wetlands with significant wildlife functions and values. continue to recommend that the housing be concentrated in the front of the site. It :ars there is ample space for a residential development in this area. While there are Class se wetlands all along the front of the site, in our vpinion these wetlands do not support as y functions as the center and eastern Class Two wetlands. in, we appreciate being contacted for comments early in your planning process. Please l us a copy of any concept plants as they emerge so we can give you feedbKk on them. If have any questions regarding this letter, feel free to: contact any of us. eaely, l J. Moul John Austin 11 Kim Greenwood 6ct Wetlands Ecologist District Wildlife Biologist Erosion Control Specialist Julie Beth Hoover, City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Peter Keibel, Act 250 Coordinator Mike Adams, Corps of Engineers Michelle Holgate, Retrovost ?.4 a i. Si�9'..fi.' l.+l;ka i.:yc°c .y.'r� e'+.w Memorandum TO: Design Review Board FR®NE Bruce I.C. Hear, Public Works Director DAM Noveanber 21. 2002 CC: Ray Beiair, ?coning Administrator RE: South lAilage Street Widths After a number oaf meetings witii the d veloper amid his 'teams we have reached 4greemnent on changes to pavemeint widths Yor their development. The following deals with lrreet width only, and not for ,waivers on other Bea s such as changes in stopping sight distance etc., for those that are to remain public. I would recommend that `he board keep in mind that the lowest speed limit that can be legally posted in the state of ;Vermont is 25 mph. All the roads that are pubhc are to be designed for this speed Emit. I would also aslr the board -w keep in main that it is a possibilitj that the city may own all the roads in this devetopment some dmie in the f nure. It may be 31cneficial to llave a trafflic ,=ginydr hired by the city review any hmgis for -whical waivers are ganated. ClIanges to asap rules that I have .agreed to are :as follows: D %ghl of .Nay widths we to be 60' for both Pubfic and Pritr--te mares with one exceotien and that is the- ,,ross section labeled AL-26. Tne crass section RD-60 is agreed to if the Developer zmlem into agreements to seep the area designated as agricuitural. P7,✓ed mad width for the public wet lands crossing shall be 20'. Any area where there is a wetlands crossing must be permitted so that the dty has the ability w make changes to the width without having to reapply for a new permnit. M construction shall be to city specs with the exception of widths. 'l dne other cross sections that have been agreed to are ST-60b, B V-66, ST-60PA, SST-60, ST-+ 0Fb.,3nd ST-a0P ID T&ae sub -base !or ST-6:OPa is to lse mnstraicted for a 28' pavement ividth. AR side for his pr�rect is -le rxpomibility r)f flee ;kv,-Ibper and all gypping shaii be of 3ivi i me or Thera;nal Plastic. T he de,:relo=- r shall provide Ee IWdrant fflags. nuuumenLauscs ana vocalists. All ages! Beginning through advanced concepts taught with clarity and patience. Questions? Call Shane Hardiman, 279-8859, Winooski. hipkeys@lycos.com. ► legals PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVEL- OPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Master Plan Application #MP- 04-01 of South Village Commun- ities, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of. 1) a 334 residential unit traditional neighborhood design to include single family, two (2) family, and multifamily dwellings, 2) a 100 student educational facility, and 3) a community building to sup- port a 35 acre farm, 1840 Spear Street. 2. 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 educa- tional facility, of a 334 residen- tiaL unit project, 1840 Spear Street. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board August 18, 2004 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, S.S. CHITTENDEN FAMILY COURT DOCKET NO. 310-4-97 Cndm Office of Child Support/Nicole Jennison, Plaintiff V. Dennis Piper Defendant Summons and Order by Publication To the above -named Plaintiff, Nicole Jennison: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Priscilla B. Dube, Esq., Defendant's attor- ney, address is, 27 Main Street, P.O. Box 925, Burlington, Vermont, 05402, an answer to the Defendant's Motion in the above -entitled action, within 20 days after service the date of the first publication of the summons, which is august 13, 2004. If you fail to do so, judgment by Nicole Jennison, Plaintiff. A copy complaint can be obta, the office of the clerk oT a Chittenden Family Court, 32 Cherry Street, Suite 200, Burlington, Vermont 05401. It appearing from the affidavit duly filed in the above -entitled action that service cannot be made with the due diligence by any of the methods prescribed in V.R.C.P. 4 (d) through (f) inclu- sive, it is hereby ORDERED that service of the above process shall be made upon the Plaintiff, Nicole Jennison, by publication published once a week for two consecutive weeks on August 13, 3004 and August 20, 2004 in the Seven Days Newspaper, a news- paper of general circulation in Chittenden County, and a copy of this order shall be mailed to the Plaintiff, Nicole Jennison if her address becomes known. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 3rd day of August, 2004 So Ordered: Honorable Mark J. Keller STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. 51117-03 CnC Citibank, N.A., as Trustee, Plaintiff Darra Kell, United States of America and Occupants residing At 24 Bluff Road, Colchester, Vermont, Defendants NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in a cer- tain mortgage given by Darra Kell to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation dated July 14, 1999 and recorded in Volume 316, Page 326 of the Land Records of the Town of Colchester, of which mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the condi- tions of said mortgage and for the purpose of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auction at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on the 2nd day of September, A.D. 2004, 24 Bluff Road, Colchester, Vermont, all and singular the premises described in said mort- gage. To wit: (A) Leasehold only: Being the lands and premises which are the subject of a Memorandum of Lease between H.V.L. Vermont, LLC and Darra Kell dated June 24, 1999 and recorded July 16, 1999 in Volume 316, Page 324 of the Town of Colchester Land Records. Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to H.V.L. Associates by Warranty Deed (_ William R. Hauke, Jr., Margaret A. Lanzetta, and Lillian H. Venner dated December 16, 1986 and recorded in Volume 124, Page 217 of the same said Land Records. More specifically, the lands and premises which are the subject of this lease are a por- tion of those conveyed to William R. Hauke, Jr., Lillian H. Venner and Margaret A. Hauke. (now Lanzetta) by Colchester Properties, Inc. by Warranty Deed dated December 28, 1959 and recorded in Volume 7, Page 234 of the same Land Records, and a corrective deed recorded in Volume 7, Page 280 of the same said Land Records. Being Lot Number 15 on the above -described lands and prem- ises, which has an address of 544 Milts Point, Colchester, Vermont. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned instruments, the records thereof and the refer- ences therein contained, in fur- ther aid of this description. (B) Building only: Being a cottage or structure, together with a garage, con- veyed to Darra Kell by Quitclaim Deed of Leonard D. Bullinger dated July 14, 1999 and record- ed July 16, 1999 in Volume 316, Page 322 of the Town of Colchester Land Records. A camp or house -type building being located at 544 Mills Point on land in Colchester, Vermont, owned by and leased from one Hauke and being the cottage, together with garage Located on the Land heretofore leased by Leonard D. Bullinger from William R. Hauke, Jr., William R. Hauke, Sr., Trustee, and Chittenden Trust Company, Trustee, d/b/a Colchester Properties, under a lease agree- ment dated June 5, 1986, and recorded in book 115, Pages 8- 10 of the Colchester Land Records, and being the same cottage or structure, together with garage, that was the sub- ject of a Quitclaim Deed given the by Walter L. Luce to Leonard D. Bullinger, dated June 5, 1986, and recorded in book 115, Pages 12-13 of said Land Records, together with the contents of said camp and garage. The land which is the subject of this Quitclaim Deed is that which was the subject of said lease agreement dated June 5, 1986, Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned instrument, the record thereof and the references therein contained, in further aid of this description. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financ- ing for the balance of purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Colchester. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Law Offices of Joshua B. Lobe, Esq., 35 King Street, Burlington, Vermont (802) 660-9000. Citibank, N.A., as Trustee By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq, P.O. Box 4493 Burlington, VT 05406 STATE OF VERMONT ORLEANS COUNTY FILED AUG 2, 2004 ORLEANS FAMILY COURT IN RE: M.E. & A.W. )Vermont Family Court )Orleans County )Docket No. 47/48-6-03 OsJv ORDER FOR SERVICE BY PUB- LICATION Based upon the motion filed by the Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families dated July 29, 2004, and the accompanying affidavits, the courts finds that service of process cannot, with due dili- gence, be made upon George Way and Chelsea Pierce other than by publication. It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that notice of a hearing to terminate all residual parental rights of George Way, father of M.E. and Chelsea Pierce, mother of M.E. and A.W. to be held on October 5, 2004, at 9;00 a.m. at the Family Court of Vermont, 247 Main street, Newport, Vermont, shall be published for two (2) consecutive weeks in Seven Days, a newspaper of general cir- culation reasonably calculated to give notice to George Way and Chelsea Pierce. A copy of this order shall be mailed to George Way if his address can ever be determined and Chelsea pierce if her address can ever be deter- mined. THE HEALING JOURNEY Women's Rape Crisis Cent( a confidential ten -week si group for women who ha% vived sexual violence. But area, call for location. 6-; Free. Info, 864-0555. DISORDERED EATING SI GROUP: Do you struggle anorexia, bulimia, or binc ing? I am Looking to star port group to help others myself in moving forward road to recovery. If you a interested in joining a ne cussion/support group an over 20 yrs, please email at jesslyn6@yahoo.com. Together we can make sm steps forward to a more fi Lifestyle. DECLUTTERS SUPPORT Are you ready to make im ments but find it overwhe Maybe 2 or 3 of us can ge together to help each sim 453-3612. PARENTS TOGETHER: Sul group will be meeting in I on Monday evenings. Snac childcare provided. All gro are free and confidential. call Amy at 247-5460 for i information. WOMEN CHANGING: A cc os educational support grc women who are interested changing patterns in their Wednesdays -ongoing. 12:3 2p.m. Call Angie at AWARE Hardwick, 472-6463. SUPPORT GROUP FOR W( who have experienced inth partner abuse, facilitated t Battered Women's Services Shelter of Washington Cow Please call 1-877-543-9491 more info. REIKI SUPPORT GROUP:. 18, 1-3 p.m. Fletcher Free Library, Burlington. All levf students and practitioners welcome. For more info., c( Joan at 860-4673 or Lynn 893-3064. WANTED: Fellow painters t together bi-weekly for cofh to discuss our work. Suppo each other's creativity! Sho your work. Meet at local do town coffee shops. Call 65E 2976, if interested. AHOY BREAST CANCER St VIVORS: Join our support c where the focus is on livin on the disease. We are a dragon boaters. Learn a thic narlrlla cnnrf and i Perrriit Number SP- Page I of 4 Permit Number SD- b (p p( APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) 'Paul R, CoAtirrs. 'P-o ,Box 89. L-Yr7d0r70e11e, yr Osrff5, PHOAI& BOA &;Z(o• ,0793 wag# 80,2 &.2G //&o Oeaoo4rw /2/1/97 568 r/.4andRec. V yr q, • why- yss' 2) L,OCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) S,qgjAuWg j,ANyRec, ✓.2/0 , �. /O(- -/07 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) POUro 70 fury WiagosKi ,A✓a, Buiz LinJc rangy, Yr' CommuNirit S. LL(! 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) OPnoN ra /OelAaH.4se . Ylo 3 - /339 5 CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) VAY,o SCNautrR AT, �,�rRor�sr , 70 �,W�NaOsk� Arr, l3uRu�/GrU�� yr 0syoj 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: /8j(0 spewR sr. SD .I3a U.,A/o7Mn/ VT 05y03 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) / (0 q0 - 04-yo . T . g) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 02,410 acres 0f farm land no longer' /,7 use. WlUi'IOecWzc S-n4/� Qm--k louSif b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) v upindAWL AldOH or .343 H bleadInri iq non -its c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) Al e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) 330 . -413 un lts of tes oPa baJ fj Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay g/9/2004 Permit Number SP- Page 2 of 4 Districts are applicable) 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 0. CA % Proposed .10 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights ofway, etc_) ftsfin :5out ofP.,ope/ty, gel?e/a/ �G�SCrrl�n fo V�Rn�on/T' GAS SYSTEMS 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) WCW-S AV1rARy coctattrio4 SYSrCM LPKwAr J�u�Psr4-r�or�JS� 1Z Coi4Keriotf Sysrdrk on/ ALL94 RP WArew SUPPLY doNOeCTINn TO UDRSerfAAHS wirN TWUAL' eONNCCTIONS It DOASCr 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE aoi3 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125. 8/9/2004 Permit Number SP- Page 3 of 4 I hereby certif?ge. a information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my kno SIGIMME OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: 6 I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: lld Co to ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date 8/9/2004 1 I ,BUTTERS LIST - JUNE 23, 2004 (2 pgs.) So. Burlington, V'1' 05403 Mary Pappas 1809 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Stuart & Helen Hall 1815 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 George & Shelly Vinal 1845 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William Reed 1967 Spear Street So. Buw-iiiigto►►, v 05403 Alan & Diane Sylvester 1985 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patrick & Juanita Clifford 4047 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Littleton Long 1702 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Gail Lang 1675 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Matthew & Beverly Broomhall 37 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harold & Eleanor Bensen 1803 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Donald & Lynn Cummings 1811 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Harry & Patricia Davison 1827 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mork S. we"card jitv'164 1344 tit. Windomerr-- n,ii"�j� Harry Stone 29 Rangely Rd. Chestnut Falls, YIA 92150 Kenneth & Cheryl Goodwin 306 South Beach Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Rodolphe & Denise Vallee 4043 Spear Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Lucien & Jane Demers P.O. Box 359 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Shane & Holly Deridder 192 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Brian & Carolyn Terhune 35 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Janet Farina 1807 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 William & Ayse Floyd 1813 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Patricia Calkins 1835 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Barbara Lande 1865 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 James McNamara 211 Killarney Dr. Burlir_ ;ton, VT 05401 Harlan & John Sylvester 51 South Street Burlington, VT 05401 Littleton & Carolyn Long 1720 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Richard & Dawn Derridinger 1575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Timothy & Jennifer Owens 197 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Stanley & Carolyn Pallutto 33 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Bouvier F al Streetlington, VT 05403 Mark & Deborah Fay 188 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 \John & Ritika Paul 191 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Anthony & Nancy Bianchi 29 Floral Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dorset Farms Commons Assoc. Kirk & Nancy Weed c/o MBL Associates 190 Catkin Drive 25 Pinecrest Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Bhagwat & Gita Mangla 195 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Philip & Darcy Carter 187 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 James & Christina Robert 79 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Pasquale & Deborah Distefano Donald and Lisa Anqwin 75 Bower Street 73 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dirk & Deborah Marek 193 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dan Wetzel 183 Catkin Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Jared & Karen Larrow 77 Bower Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 SFNT BY: RETROVEST COMPANIES; 802 ®63 1339; AUG-9 114 3:52PM; PAGE 4/4 'ermit Number SP- _--_____ ) vage s of hereby certify tha a information requested as part a: this application has been submitted and is accurate to the lest of my know ge. SIGN ►TARE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this lire ).A 11? t}F 51.18NllSSION: [ have .reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: El coa;plete U 111GutllplttC Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date 8/9/2004 t 61l� �TX±T� Nr�'� • y IrT• T ST kt" l T *" 9TTRrt � fi��r • ii• 1�i.�• *K1a t� iw � .T Ttl F Zi i�� ♦'►r' l;N• T _� rT'0:.�=t: ittT rr Tr Fttt: r�M. :r� �l'r T s sT TST • sTr'� i t { South Village South Burlington, Vermont Home Types by Lot Medium Single 27 units Small Single 56 units Cottage 20 units Bun Home 10 units Attached Singles 10 units �7 Duplex Townhomes 40 units "Triplex Townhomes 36 units F1Condominiums 36 units ® Apartments 108 units Total 343 units The Kelrueesl Coff aMl� t' o so 100 M 500 V4MI1,- ugust 2004 PAUL FRANK COLLINS P.C. s August 17, 2004 Via Facsimile 802-846-4101 Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mark G. Hall (VT) mhall@PFC/aw corn Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review Response to Attorney Andersen's Request for Delay Dear Ray: I have received Attorney Anderson's "suggestion" that the sketch plan review be delayed until September 7, 2004. South Village opposes the request and offers the following response to Attorney Anderson's misrepresentations, set forth in his August 11, 2004 letter to you: South Burlington Zoning Regulation ("SBZR"), § 15.05 is an administrative regulation designed to provide the zoning staff with sufficient time to review a project prior to its submission to the Development Review Board ("DRB"). The South Village sketch plan was reviewed months ago and the scheduled hearing is merely to renew the prior approval, so § 15.05 either does not apply or has been substantially satisfied by the developer's previous submission. Moreover, § 15.05 does not grant any substantive right to neighbors to derail a proceeding. 2. Attorney Anderson's claim that the notice of hearing is defective misstates the law. There is presently no public or personal notice requirement for sketch plan review. Instead, it is designed under the ordinance as a preliminary meeting with the DRB. To the extent that the newly enacted 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) requires notice of preliminary sketch plan review (which it does not), it conflicts with the procedures set forth in the ordinance. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4481, if an ordinance procedure and the new statute conflict, the ordinance controls through September 1, 2005. See 24 V.S.A. §4481. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 4464 simply do not apply to this proceeding as they imply notice not required by the ordinance. Moreover, even if the notice of 4464(a) procedures did apply, there is no question that Mr. Anderson and his client received actual notice. They are not permitted to assert a defect in a proceeding that other, yet unknown, persons did not receive notice. There is no reason to seek further wetlands review of the site. The sketch plans show the locations and types of the wetlands, as approved by the State of Vermont. The project also has been reviewed by three wetland biologists, which included the neutral representative of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Hiring a fourth consultant is redundant. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I www.PFC/aw.com One Church Street P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402-1307 phone 802.658.2311 fax 802.658.0042 63 Bridge Street Plattsburgh, NY 12901 phone 518.563.4595 fax 518.563.4581 A Member of TerraLex@ The Worldwide Network of Independent Law Firms Mr. Ray Belair August 17, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Respectfully, Mr. Anderson's request reflects an attitude of "stop or delay the project by any means possible for the sake of a neighboring landowner. No substantive justification is offered for further delay. Accordingly, the applicant's position is that sketch plan can and should move forward at this evening's meeting. Cordially yours, PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C. Mark G. Hall cc: Jon Anderson, Esq. 381922 v1:3264-00014 ACC-tNOA # 3 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RE: South Village Communities, LLC Sketch Plan #SD-04-62 Date: August 10, 2004 On Tuesday, August 171h, the DRB will review the Sketch Plan application of South Village Communities, LLC for the South Village project. A public hearing on the Master Plan application for the same project has been warned for Tuesday, September 7th. The DRB last reviewed the sketch plan for this project on December 3, 2002. The minutes of that meeting are enclosed. Section 15.05(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires the DRB to review a sketch plan again if the prior sketch plan review took place more than six months prior to submittal of the subdivision or Master Plan application. Thus, the DRB must review the sketch plan application for this project in advance of the September 7th public hearing on the Master Plan. As the current sketch plan application is substantially unchanged from the application reviewed in December of 2002, staff recommends that the DRB allow the sketch plan to proceed to the Master Plan public hearing on September nth. On that date, the DRB will conduct a detailed review of the Master Plan application. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 3 Mr. Boucher asked about a possible right-of-way to the rear of the property if the adjacent property is developed. Mr. Smith said he was willing to do that and would make changes to accommodate it. Mr. Cameron asked if would be reasonable to close curb cuts here. Mr. Bolton said if the building were turned and there were diagonal parking, it would make it easier to use the future access. Mr. Smith said the design is based on what they have today. Mr. Bolton felt it would be hard to improve traffic flow if the building is located where it is. Mr. Kupferman said a trade-off for him in the future would be 1 front access for the rear access. Mr. Boucher moved to approve application #CU-02-54 and Site Plan Application #SP-02-54 of Jolley Associates subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 3 December 2002. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Bolton opposing. Mr. Cameron said he didn't understand the rationale for closing curb cuts. He felt this was an ideal spot to close a curb cut, especially with the possibility of a future access in back. Mr. Belair said they look at additional traffic, use, etc. Almost all gas stations have 2 curb cuts. This one operates as a one curb cut for incoming and one for outgoing traffic. It is an existing situation. 7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-02-44 of Retrovest Associates, Inc., for a planned residential development consisting of 310 single and multi- family units on 242 acres, and a 35 acre working farm, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Anderson, representing the Vallees, gave the Board information on their position. The Board also received a memo from Bruce Hoar regarding Public Works issues. Mr. Scheuer presented the plan. He noted the location is at Spear St. and Allen Road. The goals of the project include environmental stewardship, and the plan is designed based on what they found on the site. There will be an innovative stormwater plan, integration of landscape architecture and land planning to create places where people want to congregate. There will be a mix of housing types and prices. The project will incorporate a density bonus consistent with what is being proposed by the city. The units created as a result of the density bonus will be "affordable." Mr. Scheuer then spoke of the partnership with Intervale Association to reintroduce agriculture to this site as well as a network of trails. Mr. Schulman, project engineer, the showed the details of street design and connections between neighborhoods. He reviewed the optimal speeds for traffic in certain areas and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 4 for a mix of motorists and non -motorists. The are proposing both public and private streets. Mr. Schulman noted there is an amendment to the Zoning Regs pending which will allow this. Private streets will be designed for 20 mph traffic; public streets would be designed for 25 mph. Mr. Hoar recommended 25 mph for both as the city cannot enforce a 20 mph speed limit. Mr. Schulman said they are requesting a 20 mph design but would not post the street for that speed. Mr. Dinklage said that staff recommends the city hire a traffic consultant to analyze the street layout. There is a question of liability if this is considered unsafe and the city has allowed it. Mr. Kupferman asked whose liability it is (city, homeowners, etc.). He said he appreciated the arrangement for roads designed for safe speeds. But he noted the Board doesn't have control over what is being proposed here. Mr. Dinklage asked for a proposal that everyone can live with. Mr. Belair suggested the traffic consultant be asked to look at traffic and roadway engineering. Members agreed. Mr. Bolton asked if the proposed private roads would remain private. Mr. Dinklage said this would have to be very clear in the deeds. Mr. Bolton noted this has been a problem before when residents demanded that the city maintain streets because people are paying taxes. Mr. Scheuer said there will be paperwork to preclude this problem. It will be a deed restriction. Mr. Bolton said road maintenance is expensive, and if people are paying $34,000 in taxes they will petition the city to take over the roads. Mr. Boucher moved to invoke technical review for both traffic and roadway engineering. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schulman then showed the relationship of buildings to the street. There are 9 different street types proposed in the project, some with rear alleys. There are no streets without buildings on them. There will be a 60 ft. r.o.w. at the principal entrance. All other rights of way are 60 ft. Mr. Hoar said r-o-w width is key so changes can be made if necessary. He said this was the problem at Valley Ridge where there isn't sufficient right-of-way. Mr. Cameron asked what the typical setback would be. Mr. Schulman said it depends on the type of building and would range from 0 to 10 ft. Mr. Dinklage asked about the size of a fire truck. Mr. Belair said this cannon accommodate a ladder truck. A specific kind of fire truck may be needed. Mr. Marshall said they have agreed to apply information from the Fire Chief to their preliminary plat design. They will meet the Chief s needs. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 PAGE 5 Mr. Bolton said he liked the concept but didn't know anything like it near Burlington. He felt it could establish a trend in development. He said he needed to get over the feeling: "...it looks good on paper, but..." Mr. Scheuer said they built a project in Stowe Village and would be willing to arrange a visit for the Board. This would provide a visual image. Mr. Schulman said they have done over 100 of these projects in the country and all are successful. Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Belair reviewed staff notes: Mr. Dinklage noted density will require an ordinance change which is now being considered by the Planning Commission. The number of lots served by a private street will also require ordinance changes. Mr. Belair said the lots are quite small. He didn't have a problem with that but didn't want a small lot with 95% coverage. He would like a coverage limit for each lot and one for the whole project. He had no problem with the 0 setback as long as there is a 60 ft. r.o.w. He felt they applicant had done an excellent job a showing parking. There are still some issues regarding wetland buffers which are part of lots. Restricted areas also need to be shown. Mr. Dinklage stressed the importance of the applicant meeting with the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Cameron asked what the project means in the context of affordable housing. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't looked at the degrees of affordability. Every unit they build under the bonus provision will be affordable. He stressed that they couldn't build any affordable units without the bonus provision. They are also looking at issues regarding perpetual affordability. Mr. Anderson noted that the Vallees own the property immediately south of this proposed development. He said they want a proposal that is consistent with what the city has felt about the Southeast Quadrant for a long time. He felt that higher density housing may be appropriate on the western side of the property and possibly on the eastern side. In the middle, however, there is a large wetland and significant wildlife area which they feel should remain in tact. They felt the project should be scaled down to a level that characterizes South Burlington and there shouldn't be roadways going across the wetlands. He felt there could still be a good project without these incursions. Mr. Anderson said the work done by the applicant was done in August when the area is much drier. He noted that the Vallees have hired a consultant and are working on a way to have him get on the land. Mr. Anderson also noted that the Agency of Natural Resources commented about the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2002 V%Ttywli intact wildlife area and also said densities are too high to be compatible with this. He also provided information on roadway decisions which indicate you can't build a roadway through a wetland except as a last resort and you must consider alternatives. Mr. Anderson asked the Board to look at density issues. He said he calculated 265 units or about 2000 people per sq. mile, and South Burlington is now about 350 per sq. mile. Mr. Dinklage noted that the proposed number of units meets the present ordinance. Mr. Anderson said that is the absolute maximum if you adhere to environmental amenities on the site. He said the Board doesn't automatically grant that density. He added that the current owner of the land has submitted testimony to Act 250 that they were astounded by the density that would be allowed on this land and felt no more than 100 units should be the maximum. This plan is for 3 times that. Mr. Anderson said they also believe the overall design has to meet very firm criteria to build in the restricted zone and he didn't think they had. Mr. Dinklage said that will be addressed at preliminary plat. Mr. Dinklage noted that a wetland study was done and the Board has a letter on that. Mr. Anderson noted that access to the land for that study was through the Vallee's property and they assumed the same courtesy would be given to them. He said they believe there are inaccuracies in the study that was done. He also said they are being told they can't go on the site except under some unprecedented conditions. Mr. Scheuer said they haven't denied access, they just want appropriate sharing of information. Mr. Valley said he will suggest that the Army Corps of Engineers be invited to participate in the study of the property. He also said that the suggestion that the state agrees with the boundaries is not true. He stressed that the wetland analysis should be done with a great deal of care. The city's own wetland maps show a significant area that the wetlands experts missed entirely. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee. He also said that wildlife issues are reviewed at Act 250. Ms. Hoover felt it would be appropriate to get input from the Planning Commission on assessment of Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Dinklage said if issues discussed are resolved, the project will go to preliminary plat. APPLICATION CHANGES Item 12/2002 6/25/2004 Notes Developer Applicant The Retrovest South Village South Village Companies Communities, LLC Communities, LLC organized 5/6/03 Wetland Delineation Mistaken Expanded Being checked substantially Zoning Ordinance As it existed in 2002 Major revisions Open Space Located to maximize Located to maximize aesthetic enjoyment opportunities for creating continuous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas Located to preserve and enhance open character and natural areas Natural Wildlife habitat and Resources corridors identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy must be protected. Allowed 265 > 300 number of units claimed by developer Other Development No School School Number of Accesses 1 2 New access is located to Spear Street immediately across road from someone who cannot attend this meeting due to lack of notice. Item 12/2002 6/25/2004 Notes Through Road Extended Midland Avenue Moved north May be back at extended Midland Avenue Phase III (The Grove) Proposed Proposed Supposedly deleted Street Configuration Changed throughout S:\Client Matters\72835\Miscellaneous\APPLICATION CHANGES CHART.doc Aug-IT-2004 16:22 From-PAUL, FRe1` COLLINS 6026604243 T-900 P.0021003 F-5TT f FAUL FRANK + COLLiNS R.G. ■tra August 1'17, 1-004 € is Facsimile 802-846-4101 Mr. Ray Belau. Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington. VT 05403 Mark G. Hal WT) n, hel aPFC'aw.com Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review Response to Attorney Andersen's Request for Delay Dear ley: I have received Attorney A.tiderson's "suggestion" that the sketch plan review be, delayed until September 7, 2004. South Village opposes the request and offers the following response to Attorney Anderson's misrepreseniations, set forth in his August 11, 2004 letter to you: South Burlington Zoning Regulation ("SBZR"), § 15.05 is an administrative regulation designed to provide the zoning staff with sufficient time to review a project prior to its submission to the Der,elopment Review Board ("DRB"). The South Village sketch plan was reviewed months ago and the scheduled hearing is merely to renew the prior approval, so § 15.05 either does not apply- or has been substantially satisfied by the developer's previous submission, Moreover. § 15.05 does not grant any substantive right to neighbors to derail a proceeding. 2. Attorney Anderson's claim that the notice of hearing is defective misstates the law. There is presently no public or personal notice requirement for sketch plan review. Instead, it is designed under the ordinance as a preliminary meeting with the DRB. To the extent that the newly enacted 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) requires notice of preliminary sketch plan review (which it does not), it conflicts with the procedures set forth in the ordinance. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4481, if an ordinance procedure and the new statute conflict, the ordinance controls through September 1, 2005. See 24 i!S.A. §448J. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 4464 simply do not apply to this proceeding as they imply notice not required by the ordinance, Moreover, even if the notice of 4464(a) procedures did apply, there is no question that Mr. Anderson and his client received actual notice. They are not permitted to assert a detect in a proceeding that other, yet unknown, persons did not receive notice. 3. There is no reason to seep further wetlands review of the site. The sketch plans show the locations and types of the wetlands, as approved by the State of Vermont. The project also has been reviewed by three wetland biologists, which included the neutral representative of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Hiring a fourth consultant is redundant. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I vvAw PFC,aw.car One Cl7urch Street P.O. Box 1307 6urluigton, VT 03402-1207 phone 802.658.231', tax 802.656.0042 63 5rioge &reet Plaltsturgh, NY 12901 PMCr,e 518.563.1.595 lax 5�8,553.4587 A M4mrer of TernaLexv Me wor mde Network of lade,otr,crent Law Flrrns Aui-IT-2004 16:22 =r,�r-PAUL; FR"""' & COLLINS "Mr. Ray Belair August t is 2004 Page 2 of 3 BOUS04243 ) T-900 P.003/003 P-577 Respectfully, Mr. Anderson's request reflects an attitude of "stop or delay the proiect by any means possible for the sake of a neighboring landowner. No substantive J ustification is offered for further delay. Accordingly, the applicant's position is that sketch plan can and should move forward at this evening's meeting. Cordially yours, .PAliL FRANK + COLLINS R.C. Mark G. Hall cc; Jon Anderson, Esq. ?Vi,11I-226d.GW14 BURAK ANDERSON �L MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Law Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael L. Burak" Gateway Square • 30 Dlain Street Jon Anderson Post Office Box 787 Thomas R. Melloni° Burlington, Merntont 05402-0787 Michael B. Rosenberg' Phone: 802 862-05(H) Shane NK McCormack"$° Fax 802 862-8176 e-mail: attorney(<wtlawl.com ww"tvtlawl.com *Alsoadmitted in New lurk .Not vet admitted in Vermont • Also admitted in the District of Columbia tAlso admitted in Massachusetts August 11, 2004 Re: South Village Communities, LLC ("South Village") Sketch Plan Review Dear Ray: This letter suggests the postponement of the sketch plan review hearing for the South Village project now scheduled for August 17, 2004 for the following reasons: South Burlington Zoning Regulations ("SBZR"), § 15.05 provides that sketch plan review can proceed only if an applicant "submit[s] to the Administrative Officer at least ten days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board a sketch plan" application. South Village failed to submit the required materials and pay the required fee until August 9, 2004. Indeed, the property owner has yet to sign the sketch plan application. Accordingly, a sketch plan hearing cannot be held until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Board ("DRB"), which is September 7, 2004. Rescheduling should be relatively easy since you previously reserved time for the DRB to review the project on that date anyway. 2. The applicant failed to give notice of a sketch plan review as required for new applications filed in South Burlington after the effective date of the permit reform act. Section 104 creates a new 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(2) as follows: (2) Public notice for hearings on all other types of development review, including site plan review, shall be given not less than seven days prior to the date of the public hearing, and shall include at a minimum all the following: Bu,,I MDEMON & MELLONIPLC Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington August 11, 2004 Page 2 (A) Posting of the date, place, and purpose of the hearing in three or more public places within the municipality in conformance with the time and location requirements of 1 V.S.A. § 312(c)(2). (B) Written notification to the applicant and to the owners of all properties adjoining the property subject to development, without regard to right-of-way. The notification shall include a description of the proposed proiect and shall be accompanied by information that clearly informs the recipient where additional information maybe obtained, and that participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. Such broad notice is required because neighbors lose appeal rights by not participating in the proceeding for which such notice must be given. Defects in such notice may be remedied "where reasonable efforts are made to provide adequate posting and notice." The failure to give any notice whatsoever in this case, however, likely "invalidate[s] the action of the appropriate municipal panel." 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(5). Without the required notice, the DRB also risks engaging in improper ex parte contact with the developer without the neighbors who are absent due to lack of the required notice. Postponing sketch plan review may also allow wetlands delineation issues to be resolved. Wetlands must be delineated for sketch plan review. SBZR, § 15.05A(9). As you know, South Village, ostensiblyby mistake, substantially under -identified the location of wetlands. In the prominent ridgeline section of its proposed development (which South Village proposes to call "The Ridge"), for example, South Village now admits that it failed to identify approximately 30% of the wetlands it now concedes are there. Our confidence in the delineation by South Village is further diminished by the fact that my client can observe from his property an apparent under - delineation of wetlands in the area where the improved Munroe Brook crosses onto my client's property. South Village's wetlands delineation "mistake" was discovered by our consultant whom we are trying to get on the property to thoroughly review the new wetlands delineation by South Village. (Such revision has not been checked by any third party although South Village claimed otherwise before the Natural Resources Committee.) Even if South Village stops blocking access by our consultant, her work cannot be completed and disclosed as required by South Village in time for discussion next Tuesday. Unless the DRB wishes to conduct sketch plan review willy-nilly without knowing whether basic information for its review concerning wetlands is accurate, Bu,,,.' ANDERSON MELLONI Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington August 11, 2004 Page 3 sketch plan review cannot be completed next Tuesday. Thus, the DRB will have to postpone sketch plan review anyway until the September 7, 2004 meeting to determine whether South Village's revised wetlands delineation is accurate. Indeed, the Natural Resources Committee is charged with such a review, and we would anticipate their opinions to be before the Board at sketch plan. Further, given South Village's shifting positions on this issue, we may urge the DRB to invoke third party technical review, pursuant to SBZR, § 12.02(D)(3). Altematively, by postponing sketch plan review, our consultant can complete her work (if South Village permits her to do so) by September 7, allowing the DRB to know whether or not it has accurate information concerning wetlands for sketch plan review. In other words, the DRB can get to the same place on the wetlands delineation issue much more efficiently by postponing sketch plan review. For these reasons, we suggest postponing sketch plan review for South Village. Very truly yours, 0 J n Anderson JTA\alb cc: Mark Hall, Esq. SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jta belair3.doc