HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-019 CU-22-03 - Supplemental - 0055 Green Mountain Drive (3)1
Marla Keene
From:Mark Freker <m.freker@bfjplanning.com>
Sent:Friday, June 3, 2022 9:40 AM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:Georges Jacquemart
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla- Thanks for the clarifications.
The existing school has 26,700 SF and is designed for an enrollment of 108 students, about 247 SF/student. If we were to
apply that density to the new building (a worst case assumption given the amount of gym space in the new building, -
but that may allow the replacement of some gym spaces in the existing building with classroom space, to be verified) we
could get an additional 68 students bringing the total student enrollment to 176.
The next question then is whether the additional 68 students that this expansion may allow generate more traffic than
the 16,771 SF of office:
ITE Traffic generation (11th edition):
LUC 532 Private School K-12: AM peak hour 68*0.79 = 54 trips PM peak hour 68* 0.17 = 12 trips
LUC 534 Private High School: AM peak hour 68*0.66 = 45 trips PM peak hour 68* 0.19 = 13 trips
Average of above: AM peak hour 50 trips PM peak hour 13 trips
LUC 710 General Office: AM peak hour 16.771*1.52 = 25 trips PM peak hour 16.771*1.44 = 24 trips
LUC 715 Single Tenant Office: AM peak hour 16.771*1.85 = 31 trips PM peak hour 16.771*1.76 = 30 trips
Average of above: AM peak hour 28 trips PM peak hour 27 trips
So the school is likely (in the long term) to increase their traffic generation in the morning by 22 trips in comparison to
the office use, but would reduce it by 14 trips in the PM peak hour. I think this is reasonable as the plans for the new
building show 4 more classrooms and 10 more offices.
Regarding the LOS D threshold is it very likely that the overall LOS of both intersections is significantly better than the
LOS for the side street approaches. So if the side street approaches are at LOS C the overall intersection LOS is probably
at B or better, and the same for the main route (Rte 7).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Mark Freker
BFJ Planning
115 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10003
T. 16463815702
E: m.freker@bfjplanning.com
2
From: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:08 PM
To: Mark Freker <m.freker@bfjplanning.com>
Cc: Georges Jacquemart <g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
CAUTION: External E-mail
The building is listed on the plans as 16,771 sf. I’ve attached the architectural plans and a potentially useful civil sheet. I
would be surprised if they lost 3k sf to unusable space. My colleague actually pointed out that discrepancy as well. I
think the 16,771 is more accurate.
The current building is approved as 26,700 sf. We don’t track enrollment but their website says 108 students currently.
Here’s an excerpt from our regulations pertaining to LOS D (from LDR 15.A.14):
D. Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized intersection or those
intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including
the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through
movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846-4106
From: Mark Freker <m.freker@bfjplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:18 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: Georges Jacquemart <g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla,
This seems a bit more complicated. Here are my initial questions:
Based on their ITE traffic generation sheets it appears that the office building that they move into is 13,760 SF. Is
that correct?
Do you have the floor area of the existing building that the school occupies? And is the current enrollment 160
students or 190 students? They use 160 students for LUC 522 and 190 for LUC 530.
And regarding the mitigation at LOS D is that for an overall LOS D for the whole intersection, or LOS D for an
approach or a movement?
Thanks for any insight that you are able to provide on these items.
Mark Freker
BFJ Planning
115 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10003
3
T. 16463815702
E: m.freker@bfjplanning.com
From: Mark Freker
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: Georges Jacquemart <g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla,
Thank you – I will be able to take a deeper look at this on Friday and should be able to provide comments by end of day
Monday. I’ll reach out on Friday if I have any questions after I begin the review.
Thanks,
Mark Freker
BFJ Planning
115 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10003
T. 16463815702
E: m.freker@bfjplanning.com
From: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Mark Freker <m.freker@bfjplanning.com>
Subject: FW: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
CAUTION: External E-mail
Hi Mark,
For this project, the applicant, Vermont Commons School, a 6-12 private school, is proposing to take over and expand
into a former office building on an adjacent lot. Our regulations have two relevant elements. First, we charge a traffic
impact fee for all new trips. Second, we require mitigation for anything that creates a LOS D at the nearest signalized
intersections. Based on observation, the nearest signalized intersection at IDX Drive fills the queue lanes during peak
hours, which I think makes it likely a LOS C? Vehicles do not wait two light cycles. The Green Mountain Drive
intersection (nearly equidistant but maybe a little farther) operates with less queuing. They’ve been stating that they
are not proposing to increase trips over existing because they are not increasing the number of students, but I’m
skeptical. It may be true that they’re not planning to instantaneously increase the number of students, but either A) the
current location is overcrowded and they’re generating MORE than the normal number of trips from their current
location, or B) they’ll generate new available space and grow into it over time. Either way I feel pretty strongly that the
proposed expansion will increase their trip gen. Then the question becomes whether they’re increasing over the office
use. They’ve provided the attached to say that they’re not, but I question their choice of LUC… seems that they should
be using private school and not the public school codes which assume some level of bussing. The Vermont Commons
School does not use buses for day to day arrivals and departures.
4
What are your thoughts on whether A) they’re increasing trips and B) whether they should be required to study the
adjacent intersections?
I just received the attached and below when I arrived this morning, and their hearing will be next Tuesday. If possible I’d
like to have your recommendation by then, but let me know either way?
Thank you as always!
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846-4106
From: David Marshall <dmarshall@cea-vt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:18 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: 'Dexter Mahaffey' <dmahaffey@vermontcommons.org>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla-
1. We have attached the update site plan which identifies the size and species of the existing
trees as part of the applicant’s proposal to adopt the concept of adopting the existing trees as
part of the regulatory base line for on-site landscaping along the north side of the property.
2. Working off the thought of determining whether the VT Commons School Land Use at 55
Green Mountain Drive was greater or less than the prior land use on the property, we utilized
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation data base to identify those
prior and future land use trip generation rates during the PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street.
Office Use
Based on a rough analysis using square footage, Staff estimates the previously-approved office use generated
21 trips. Based on the 13,760 GSF building footprint, we ran the ITE modeling for a Single Tenant
Office Building (LUC 715) and the regression curve reported back 49 VTE during the PM Peak of the
generator, while the average calculated as 24 VTE. We also ran as a check, a General Office Building
(LUC 710) and the ITE data base reported 27 VTE during the PM Peak Hour of the adjacent Street
Traffic.
School Use
The Vermont Commons School hosts grades 6-12.
This grade range combines both a portion of Middle school/Junior High School (grades 6-8) and the
entirety of the High School ranks (Grades 9-12).
Based on the 27 VTE from the General Office Use (LUC 710) where the VTE during the PM Peak hour
of the adjacent street was identified as 27, we reverse engineered the number of students that could
5
be accommodated on the property and still not generate more than 27 VTE during the PM Peak. We
utilized the ITE data base to determine the PM Peak Hour trip generation for both a high school (Land
Use Code 530) and a Middle/Junior High School (LUC 522) as the grade range at the VCS spanned both
land uses.
The attached graphs indicated that a 190 student High School (Grades 9-12) would generate 27
Vehicle Trip Ends (VTE) while a 160 student Middle/Junior High (Grades 6-8) would create 27
VTE. The weighted average of the two based on grade breakdown yields (4 for the High School and 3
for the Jr/Middle School) yielded 177 students.
Based on the PM peak hour generation of the prior office use, the proposed school use can sustain
up to 177 students without causing an increase in the trip generation during the PM Peak hour at
the 55 Green Mountain Drive property.
We have attached the PDFs of the graphical solutions to the ITE traffic generation analysis.
In order not to lose the benefits of the prior permitted 27 VTE, the applicant asks that the application
be revised to propose 177 students at the 55 Green Mountain Drive property.
Thank you and Best Regards
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403 P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271
From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:06 PM
To: dmarshall@cea-vt.com
Cc: Dexter Mahaffey
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
ok, thanks Dave, I’ll share with Dalila, as it will be her authority to implement, and ask her to make a recommendation to
the DRB. Meanwhile, were you able to confirm the ITE trip generation values? It would be far simpler to allow it as an
educational use without any particular reporting requirements.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846-4106
From: David Marshall <dmarshall@cea-vt.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 2:19 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: Dexter Mahaffey <dmahaffey@vermontcommons.org>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla-
6
I have cut and pasted in the response from Dexter Mahaffey at the Vermont Commons School as it
relates to the ability to provide updates to the Planning & Zoning office regarding compliance with the
permitted student and staffing levels at the school.
Hi Dave,
Yes, every year the school is required by statute to report our student numbers by grade to the Agency
of Education; we also are required for continuing accreditation to provide the same numbers, as well
as faculty and staff, each year to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). It
would be quite easy to provide these on an ongoing basis to South Burlington for the purposes of the
ease of monitoring and then requesting discussion with us, should the enrollment situation change
such that it exceeded the current approved use numbers for the two buildings. We regularly are in
touch with other SB entities--at least annually with some--(Fire, EMS, Police Dept., SB School
District) about our current enrollment, safety plans, student learning needs for Title II and IV
funding, and other matters. Long story short: we'd be happy as a condition of approval to include SB
Planning and Zoning as a recipient of our annual report/s on enrollment.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Dexter
Dr. Dexter P. Mahaffey
Head of School
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403 P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271
From: David Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea-vt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 11:23 AM
To: 'Marla Keene'
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi Marla-
I am back in the office if you have time to squeeze a call in before you head out.
Thx
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271
From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:50 AM
To: dmarshall@cea-vt.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
Hi David, received and will have available tonight.
7
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846-4106
From: David Marshall <dmarshall@cea-vt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:04 AM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: Dexter Mahaffey <dmahaffey@vermontcommons.org>; droy@wiemannlamphere.com; Andrew Furtsch
<andrewfurtsch@icloud.com>; Kelley DesRoches <kdesroches@wiemannlamphere.com>; Alex Aftuck
<aaftuck@wiemannlamphere.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Marla-
We are in receipt of the Staff report for the Conditional Use and Site Plan application for the Vermont
Commons School at 75/55 Green Mountain Drive. In preparation for the hearing before the
Development Review Board on the 17th, we will be presenting the following supplemental testimony
to the Board regarding the highlighted staff comments. A portion of the regulatory requirements
from the Staff report is used as a preamble to the proposed supplemental testimony.
15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized
intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or
better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed
PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major
roadway shall have a level of service of “D” or better at full buildout. In addition to this criterion,
conditional use criterion require demonstration that the proposed educational use will have no undue
adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The applicant stated in their cover
letter that they do not intend to expand the school at this time and there will be no additional traffic
due to the conversion of 55 Green Mountain Drive to an educational use. As the Board is aware, a
change in use is not for a specific tenant but remains allowable if either the tenant changes or
operation of the current tenant changes. The application is for an additional 12,000 sf of educational
use, which is supported by architectural plans showing a gymnasium, classrooms, and office
space. The property will not require additional local permitting if the applicant later decides to
reallocate interior spaces within the umbrella of educational use.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a calculation of the proposed vehicle trips
ends of the educational use, and discuss whether to require the applicant to evaluate the LOS at the
nearest signalized intersections. Based on a rough analysis using square footage, Staff estimates the
previously-approved office use generated 21 trips and the educational use may generate between 55 and
8
108 trips. Based solely on observations at peak hour, Staff anticipates that the nearest signalized
intersections, those of Green Mountain Drive at Shelburne Road and IDX Drive at Shelburne Road, operate
at LOS C. Whether the LOS at the nearest signalized intersections will be impacted by the proposed
change in use will depend on the additional trip generation by the use. We understand that a Conditional
Use approval runs with the land but we also understand that the Site Plan approval for the property can
control the activities in a manner that addresses specific concerns. The applicant is not proposing an
increase in the previously permitted student or staff levels on the parent property. There is no
proposed increase in the total staff and student levels when the operations on the two properties are
combined As such, there will be no additional traffic generation not already authorized to be mitigated
and a traffic study should not be required. Even if a traffic allocation for the school use was required
for the 55 Green Mountain Drive property, it would appear the PM Peak hour for schools is less than
that associated with the previous office use on the property. A possible condition for the 55 Green
Mountain Drive property would be to limit it to no more vehicle trip ends than the previously permitted
use on the property.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage. For existing buildings, the applicant is only required to comply with short
term bicycle parking requirements. Educational uses require 1 space for each 20 students of planned
capacity. The applicant’s website indicates 108 students are enrolled for 2021.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to apply this criterion to each individual site (keeping in mind
no additional local permitting would be required if the applicant later converts 55 Green Mountain Drive to
classroom space) or whether to apply this criterion to 55 Green Mountain Drive and 75 Green Mountain
Drive taken together. The provided plans do not show any existing bicycle racks at 55 Green Mountain
Drive. The approved plans for 75 Green Mountain Drive indicate one inverted-U bicycle rack, providing
space for two bicycles. Currently all of the student lockers are located at 75 Green Mountain Drive and
will continue to be so moving forward. This is the first place students go when arriving at the
building. Therefore, the applicant will provide a compliant bicycle rack installation at the 75 Green
Mountain Drive (North) building. The location will be the same as the existing movable bicycle rack
serving the use.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees 13.04I Landscape Maintenance. Maintenance and
responsibility. All planting shown on an approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a
vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced
with new plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. Trees with a caliper of
less than 5” may be replaced on an inch-by-inch basis with trees of the same genus of at least 2” caliper
each. No permit shall be required
for such replacements provided they conform to the approved site plan. Replacement of trees with a caliper
of greater than 5” shall require an amendment to the site plan.
The most recently approved site plan for the property that pertains to the affected portion of the site
approved four (4) Bradford pear trees and eight (8) creeping juniper bushes between the parking area and the
property line. If the landscaping had been allowed to mature as required, the previously approved vegetation
would be well established at this time. There is no evidence of the property having obtained a permit to
9
modify the approved landscaping. The provided site plan indicates the presence of two unidentified trees,
four locust trees, two cedar trees and one crab (presumably crab apple) tree between the parking area and
the street. The applicant is proposing to remove the crab apple tree. It is indicated as having a 3-inch caliper.
3. Staff recommends the Board do one of the following.
Allow the existing landscaping to be considered an acceptable substitution for the previously required
landscaping as an after-the-fact approval, including the proposed removal of the crab apple tree. If the
Board selects this approach, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to identify the
unidentified trees on the plan to allow future enforcement of this criterion. This option is acceptable to
the applicant and as part of the documentation of the existing tree species in this area will also
commit to the planting of a replacement 3” crab apple tree in the area.
Require the applicant to demonstrate the existing landscaping has at least the same value as the
previously-approved landscaping, based on the present costs of the existing and previously approved
landscaping. If the existing landscaping does not meet or exceed the previously required landscaping
value, require the applicant to provide supplemental landscaping to make up the deficit.
Require the applicant to comply with the previously approved landscaping plan
Best Regards
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271