Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/15/2016 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; G. Rabideau, R. Hickey, S. Vock, L. Bresee, E. Langfeldt, A. Rowe, J. Hodgson, J. Larkin, A. Gill, A. Rowe, D. Vardakas, J. Carroll, K. Frank, M. Dean, R. Neuer 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-07 of Robert Hickey for approval to allow a roof extension over the front steps to encroach 7’3” into the front yard setback, 30 Cortland Avenue: Mr. Hickey explained that they are placing a cover over the front steps to prevent them from being destroyed by water and ice dripping from the roof as the previous steps had been. The garage already encroaches into the setback more than the roof will. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-16-07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-08 of Wesley J. & Patricia A. Eldred Family Trust for approval to stabilize the shoreline by constructing a rock retaining wall, 114 Central Avenue: Mr. Vock said the project is located at the mouth of Potash Brook. He described the damage done by Hurricane Irene and said that if nothing is done, and there is more damage, the slope could fail. He cited the importance of reinforcing the embankment. No trees will be removed from the embankment. Mr. Vock showed pictures of a similar project they just did in the City of Burlington. Mr. Miller noted receipt of comments from the Stormwater Department who had no issues with the project. He reminded the applicant of the need for State approval. He also cited the need for a tree protection plan. Mr. Vock said there will be no equipment used on the embankment. No other issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-16-08. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin, Inc., and Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Rabideau noted this is the first phase of a larger plan. There are now 54 units in 3 buildings which are operated as a hotel. Those buildings will be demolished. The new building will have 3 floors of residential units above the ground floor retail. There will be some 2 bedroom units as recommended by staff. Mr. Rabideau then showed the location of surface and underground parking. They are allowing for connections to the property to the south. They will also do some stormwater improvements. Regarding streetscape, Mr. Hodgson showed the location of buildings and “plaza” areas. He indicated the existing bus stop which will now include an 8-foot planted buffer and 10-foot promenade area. The area will be ADA accessible at both ends. Mr. Hodgson then indicated the existing trees to be saved and the location of new trees. Mr. Rabideau noted the change in thinking which pushes buildings up closer to the road. Mr. Kochman said he felt this was OK with Shelburne Road but was not pleased with buildings closer to Fayette Road. Ms. Smith was OK with it and liked the trees and the thought that went into the layout and spacing. Mr. Rabideau said they would be happy to submit plans that show more “activity” on Fayette Road. Mr. Miller said he would like to see that. Mr. Parsons said he would like to see more accesses on the north side and asked the applicant to be mindful of bike traffic. A concept of the buildings was then shown including an area for more “interaction with the street.”  Mr. Rabideau indicated where there would be different colored bricks (the façade will be all brick). The “tower” may incorporate glass. There may be some occupied space in the “tower.” The comments from the City Arborist were noted. Mr. Hodgson said they can move trees to different locations. Ms. Britt suggested they speak directly with the Arborist. Mr. Hodgson noted the shrubs on Shelburne Road are the highest in salt tolerance. These will be maintained by the State as it is a State road. It was noted that plants in the right‐of‐way don’t count toward the minimum landscape budget. Mr. Rabideau asked if “public art” still counts toward landscaping. Mr. Belair said he isn’t sure. The “art” should provide the same benefit as landscaping (e.g. a fence). He said the applicant could propose putting the sculpture into the landscaping budget. Mr. Parsons felt it was OK to count as landscaping, citing things done in Burlington. Ms. Smith was not inclined to see it as landscaping. Mr. Hodgson said they are running out of places to put landscaping. It was also noted that a center island has been added to the parking lot. Mr. Rabideau said they will be asking for a number of waivers. He showed areas where height waivers will be wanted. The height limit is 35 feet, and they will be asking for 45 feet. Mr. Miller felt this is becoming a “taller area” and was OK with the waiver. Mr. Kochman said he generally supports taller buildings in urban areas, but he was concerned with Adirondack views. Regarding shared parking, Mr. Rabideau reminded the Board that this is part of the L & M Park that has a shared parking arrangement. He said there will be plenty of parking for this phase of the project, and they will not use more than their share of the L & M Park arrangement. There will be 53 spaces under the building, 51 on the surface and 12 on the street. They are actually increasing the available parking “pool” with this project. Mr. Belair said they will need a share parking analysis that shows the whole parking plan since they are amending the PUD. Mr. Rabideau said their traffic person will be at the next hearing. He said there are sufficient trip ends allotted for this phase. Mr. Belair asked if there are any retaining walls for this phase. Mr. Rabideau showed the location of one 30-36 inch retaining wall. Mr. Kochman asked if there will be any affordable housing. Mr. Rabideau said not in Phase 1, but the rates will be very competitive. Mr. Kochman said that from his point of view they are destroying 61 units of affordable housing, and the Comprehensive Plan has the opposite goal. He felt that at some point that will become a serious issue. He said that if the applicant is looking for an affordable housing density bonus, they will have to justify the destruction of 62 units of affordable housing. He also felt the Affordable Housing Committee should chime in on this. Mr. Larkin noted that 12 of the 61 units were lost due to a water main break. Mr. Breese cited what will be a major route for cyclists. He also raised an issue with trees on Shelburne road having branches knocked off by tractor trailers and also root damage from sidewalks. Mr. Neuer noted a large turning radius at one point and felt this encourages speeding. Mr. Rabideau said they could tighten that if it’s OK with the Fire Department. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-16-29 until 20 December 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio for a Planned Unit Development to subdivide a 1.02 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 0.47 acres (lot #3A) and 0.55 acres (lot #3B) and developing lot #3B with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Rowe indicated the location of the property and noted the curb cuts are off Dubois Drive. The existing trees on Dubois Drive will remain. There will be new street trees for the duplex lot. Mr. Rowe then showed elevations and noted that one of the duplex units has an entry facing Hinesburg Road. Units will have a one-car garage with parking behind and in front of the garage. Mr. Rowe also indicated a 30-36 inch retaining wall behind the duplex. Mr. Belair noted there is a waiver request relating to the minimum ratio of lot width to depth. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-13-30. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller said information was just received this afternoon, and the Board is not ready to discuss it. There would have to be a separate application for 458 units. Mr. Miller also noted that on p. 5 of the staff summary, Mr. Kochman had modified the height waiver so that it is subject to “full architectural review” (these words replace “architectural specifications”). Mr. Langfeldt said the “catch” with height is that they need a “reasonable amount of certainty” that they can get the height waiver. Mr. Kochman then read from Section 3.07(d)(2) of the LDRs. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #MP-16-01 until 20 December 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 1 November 2016: Mr. Kochman noted that under item #10 the words “City Council” should read “counsel.” Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 1 November 2016 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Members agreed to meet with legal counsel at 6:15 p.m. prior to the next DRB meeting to discuss Mr. Kochman’s concerns regarding affordable housing. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:05 p.m. , Clerk 12/20/16 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #CU-16-07 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ROBERT HICKEY—30 CORTLAND AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-08 of Robert Hickey for approval to allow a roof extension over the front steps to encroach 7’-3” into the front yard setback, 30 Cortland Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 15, 2016. The applicant represented himself. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Robert Hickey, seeks approval to allow a roof extension over the front steps which will encroach 7’-3” into the front yard setback, 30 Cortland Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Robert Hickey. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District. 4. The application was received on September 29, 2016. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) untitled page prepared by the applicant showing 28, 30, and 32 Cortland Ave. and the respective setbacks from the center line of the street. 6. The lot for 30 Cortland Avenue was in existence prior to February 28, 1974. A. Section 3.06 Setbacks and Buffers Section 3.06(J) provides exceptions to setback and lot coverage requirements for lots existing prior to February 28, 1974. The proposed project meets the standard to be reviewed under Section 3.06(J)(3), which allows additional encroachment into a setback to be considered by the Board. The Board must determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse effect on: (a) Views of adjoining and or nearby properties; The proposed project consists of installing a roof over an existing set of front steps at a single family dwelling. The subject property and adjacent properties are in a line sharing almost identical setbacks from the centerline of Cortland Avenue. The existing house already has a garage which extends into the setback slightly further than the proposed roof will extend. The Board finds that the addition of a roof over the steps will have no impact on views. (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; #CU-16-07 2 The Board finds the project will not have an impact on access to sunlight for neighboring properties. (c) Adequate on-site parking; and The Board finds the project will have no impact on parking. (d) Safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The Board finds the project will no impact on safety. B. Section 14.10 Conditional Use Review The proposed project must meet the standards for a conditional use included in Section 14.10(E). (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The proposed project will have no impact on the character of the area. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The Board finds the proposed project is in compliance with bylaws and ordinances currently in effect. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. The Board finds this criterion to be met. DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by ___________, to approve conditional use application #CU-16-07 of the Robert Hickey: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. #CU-16-07 3 2. The project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the approved plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. #CU-16-08 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING WESLEY J. & PATRICIA A. ELDRED FAMILY TRUST—114 CENTRAL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-08 of Wesley J. & Patricia A. Eldred Family Trust for approval to stabilize the shoreline by constructing a rock retaining wall, 114 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 15, 2016. The applicant was represented by Steve Vock. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Wesley J. & Patricia A. Eldred Family Trust, seek approval to stabilize the shoreline by constructing a rock retaining wall, 114 Central Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Wesley J. & Patricia A. Eldred Family Trust. 3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District & the Surface Water Protection Overlay District. 4. The application was received on September 30, 2016. 5. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 9/30/16, and titled “Existing Conditions Site Plan,” “Proposed Conditions Site Plan,” and “Erosion Control Details & Specifications.” A. Section 12.01(C) Surface Water Buffer Standards Section 12.01(C) has as its objective “to promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.” The proposed project will remove some trees and vegetation. Section 12.01(C)(4) states that the “DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use”: (a) … (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, #CU-16-08 2 plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) … (d) … (e) … (f) … (g) … (h) … (i) … (j) … (k) … Item (b) is applicable to the project. The area disturbed by this project will be confined to that area necessary to install the proposed stone wall and steps, whose purpose is erosion control, and the applicant’s plans indicate erosion control practices will be followed during construction so as to protect the purposes of Section 12 of the LDRs. The Board finds this criteria to be met. Staff has not received any comments from the Stormwater Section. B. Section 12.01(D) Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park Section 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. Erosion control measures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met (Section 12.01(D)(3)): a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The proposed project will use stone and wood. The Board finds this criterion to be met. b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. The intent of the project is to reduce erosion. The Board finds this criterion to be met. c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. In making a determination pursuant to this criterion, the DRB may request renderings or other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the visual impact of the proposed improvement. The proposed stone retaining wall is similar to the existing condition of boulders and is designed to blend with its surroundings. The Board finds this criterion to be met. d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The City Arborist submitted the following comment in an email dated November 3, 2016: #CU-16-08 3 Since the plans specifies that existing trees are to be protected, a tree protection plan and details should be included. A condition of the decision will be for the applicant to submit the details requested by the City Arborist to his satisfaction prior to receiving a zoning permit. C. Section 14.10 Conditional Use Review The proposed project must meet the standards for a conditional use included in Section 14.10(E). (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The Queen City Park Zoning District encourages residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed project will not impact that goal. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. As noted above the Board finds that this projects conforms to Section 12.01(C) & (D). The Board finds this criterion to be met. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. The Board finds this criterion to be met. DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by ___________, to approve conditional use application #CU-16-08 of the Wesley J. & Patricia A. Eldred Family Trust: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. The project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. #CU-16-08 4 3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The landscaping plan must be updated to show a tree protection plan and details that is satisfactory to the City Arborist. 4. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. Any change to the approved plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. CMF1.0 AGSTOCKADE FENCETHRESHOLDELEV.=129.9PROPANE TANK (2)WITNESS IPF24" PINE24" OAK4" PINE28" OAK24" OAK18" OAK3" CEDAR24" STUMP12" STUMPEXISTINGWOODSTAIRS6" PINE6" PINE6" PINE6" PINE4" PINE14" OAK4" SHADE4" MAPLE4" SHADE4" BUCKTHORN2" PINE2" OAK6" PINE4" DIINV.=117.2137 136 135 134 133 132131 130 129 128 127126 125 124 123 123122 121 120120 11511010510098979695EXISTINGWOOD STAIRSEXISTING 1' WIDETIMBER WALLEXISTING 6" WIDETIMBER WALLEXISTINGBOULDERSEXISTINGRIP RAP14" OAK2" MAPLEEXISTINGSTONES3" PINE2" HEMLOCK2-3" HEMLOCKS6" PINE3" PINE3" PINE6" MAPLE6" SHADE3" PINE8" PINE10" PINE6" PINE4" PINE4" PINE12" STUMP2" OAK14" PINE12" STUMP12" PINE12" PINE2" HEMLOCK6" BASWOOD2" OAK2" PINE18" PINE16" PINE8" MAPLE2" MAPLE2" SHADE2" SHADE20" PINE14" MAPLE4" OAK2" SHADE2" SHADE2" CHERRY20" OAK22" OAK24" OAK4" HDPEINV.=100.810" MAPLE22" OAK22" MAPLE2" MAPLE2" ELM4" OAK4" ELM4" PINE10" MAPLE(3 BOL)12" ELM6" MAPLE4" (2 BOL)3" ASH(2 BOL)(2)3" ASH6" BUCKTHORN2" ELM18" MAPLEEXISTING RESIDENCECOVERED PORCHEDGE OF PAVEMENTCOM PEDESTALELEC. PEDESTAL95.595.5LAKE CHAMPLAIN100' SETBACK FROM 95.5 CONTOURSTATE OF VERMONT250' SETBACK FROM 95.5 CONTOURSTATE OF VERMONTPOTASH BROOKCENTRAL A V E.5' SIDE YARDSETBACK10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 1251301359697105110150' SETBACK FROM 102 CONTOURCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONN/FM. TURNERN/FDAVID M. FARRELL TRUSTN/FFIRE DISTRICT #1127 EDGE OFLAKEEDGE OFLAKE/STREAM@ TIME OFSURVEYSAVSAVMAB1" = 20'15190C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ELDRED RESIDENCE114 CENTRAL AVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403SHORELINESTABILIZATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONS SITEPLANSOUTH BURLINGTONBURLINGTONACE114 CENTRAL AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTNOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALLUTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES.EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTORSHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE(888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAXMAP INFORMATION. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOTINTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATION RECOVERED IS CONSISTENTWITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.4. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC SEPTEMBER 2016. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS"GRID NORTH", VERMONT COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL)ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE.5. PROJECT BENCHMARK IS LAKE CHAMPLAIN ESTABLISHED FROM THE UNITEDSTATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAUGING STATION 04294500 LOCATED INBURLINGTON, VERMONT. (DATUM NGVD 29)7PROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING PAVEMENTSTREAMEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDSPIKE SET09/30/2016P:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15190\1-CADD Files-15190\Dwg\15190 Site.dwg, 9/30/2016 11:09:05 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 CMF1.0 AGSTOCKADE FENCETHRESHOLDELEV.=129.9PROPANE TANK (2)ANNEPA2)KWITNESS IPF24" PINE24" OAK4" PINEE28" OAKK24" OAK2OAKA18" OAOAOAA3" CEDARCE3AR3"3CECCCCEEDACCCCCCCCCCCCCC""24" STUMP24 12" STUMPEXISTING WOODODWOGWTINISSTAIRSSAIRSTA6" PINENEPIN66" PINE6" PINEENN6" PINE4" PINE614" OAKKOA14"4" SHADEHASH44" MAPLEEPLEAPPLMA4"PLE4" M4" SHADEDESHA444" BUCKTHORNRNTHOUCK"BUNN2" PINENEPI22" OAK2KA6" PINEEPIN6"EE4" DIINV.=117.2136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127126 125 124 123 123122 121 120120 11511010598979695EXISTING WOOD STAIRSEXISTING 1' WIDETXISETIMBER WALLER WALLEXISTING 6" WIDETIMBER WALLEXISTINGBOULDERSEXISTING RIP RAP14" OAK2" MAPLEEXISTINGINSTONESE3" PINEPI2" HEMLOCKCKMLOHEM2 2-3" HEMLOCKS3"2-KSCEMLPINEE6" PIN6"66" PIN66666"6"3" PINEE3" PIN6" MAPLE6EAPL6" SHADEASH63" PINE3 PINEENEN8" PINPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE"PINE"PINEPINEPINE PINE PINE88888888888888888888888888888PPP888888888888888"P10" PINE0 PPINEPINEPINE6" P P6" PP6"4" PINE4 NEEE4" PPPPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE4" P4" P4" P4" P4" P4" P4 P4 PNNNN12" STUMPUSTMP2" OAKK614" PINE14"12" STUMP12" S1TU2" S12" PINEPIN12PINE12112"2121NPPIPP12" PINE2"NE122122" HEMLOCKOEMLH6" BASWOODDOODSW6" BA2" OAKAK2" PINE2" P2E18" PINEE16" PINENEPIN16E8" MAPLE2" MAPLEM22" SHADEADESH22" SHADE20" PINEPIN14" MAPLE4" OAKKOAK4" O44" O2" SHADEHADE"SDEE2" SHADE2" SEHADSH2" CHERRYCHR20" OAK20"AK2222" OAKA2"22""O22""ODEE24" OAK4OAKAKAOAAAKAOAOAST4" HDPEINV.=100.810" MAPLE0" LEP22" OAK2222" MAPLE22" M2" MAPLE" MAP2" ELMELM4" OAK" OA4" ELM4"4" PINE4PIE10" MAPLE(3 BOL)12" ELM6" MAPLE4" (2 BOL)3" ASH(2 BOL)(2)3" ASH(2)3" ASSH(AS3A)32)32)AAS(22SSH2S)S6" BUCKTHORNNORNHOHO6"TH6"HO6KTHCKO"BO BORBORCKKRNURNUC662" ELM2"ELMMM2LL18" MAPLE18APMAE18"818"18EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCECOVERED PORCH 95.5LAKE CHAMPLAIN100' SETBACK FROM 95.5 CONTOURONMTBSTATE OF VERMONTVVEPOTASH BROOK5' SIDE YARDSETBACK10'100 FRONT YAR D SETBACK 1251301359697105110N/FFIRE DISTRICT #1127 EDGE OF LAKE/STREAM@ TIME OF SURVEYTIE WALL INTOEXISTING RIP RAPEXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVEDAND REPLACED IN KIND W/ 2"CALIPER NURSERY STOCKPROTECT EXISTING TREESDURING CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED LARGE STONERETAINING WALL(T.O.W. =105±)LANDING=105±+ 105±+ 105±PROPOSED STEPSFOR BEACH ACCESSALL WORK TO BE PERFORMEDABOVE THE 98' CONTOURTO BE REMOVED+ 105±0+00 0+25 0+50 0+7590929496981001021041061081101121141161181201221241261281309092949698100102104106108110112114116118120122124126128130129.3119.8101.2EXISTING GRADEALL WORK TOBE PERFORMEDABOVE THE 98'CONTOURANCHOR STONE WALL WITHGEO-GRID EVERY 2-3 VERTICALFEET MINIMUM (1 LAYER PERCOURSE)(TYPICAL) OR AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEERTOPSOILFILTER FABRICGENERAL FILLPROPOSEDLARGE STONERETAINING WALLEXISTING RESIDENCEPROPOSED STONE WALLTO BE KEYED INTOEXISTING MATERIAL ±2'INSTALL FILTER FABRIC AGAINSTEXISTING GRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENTOF SHOT ROCK. CONTINUE FABRICBELOW WALL AND AROUND BASEROCKTO FRONT OF WALLSAV1" = 10'C1.109/30/2016PROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLANACE1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIESLOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITYLOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALLUTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANYCONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BEREMOVED OR ABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER ATTHE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFFTHE SITE) AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION ISESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FORCOMPLETE AND OPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS ANDMATERIALS INCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ONANY ITEM UNTIL SHOP DRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALLPERMIT CONDITIONS AND ANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWNAREAS SHALL BE 0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BECONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W.WITH TOWN AUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONESERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OFAT AN APPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITHA PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS ORSPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FORVERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ON THE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAPINFORMATION. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TOBE USED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BEPROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALLCONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TO TWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEEMECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTIONSERVICES INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETEAND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERINGREQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATESWILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILE WHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALLSAFETY FENCES OR RAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNERSHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THEINSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.GENERAL NOTESPROPOSED SECTION A-ASCALE 1" = 10'SAVMAB15190LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ELDRED RESIDENCE114 CENTRAL AVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403SHORELINESTABILIZATIONSOUTH BURLINGTONBURLINGTON114 CENTRAL AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT7PROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING PAVEMENTSTREAMEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDSPIKE SETP:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15190\1-CADD Files-15190\Dwg\15190 Site.dwg, 9/30/2016 11:09:09 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SAVNTSC2.0PROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLANACESAVMAB15190LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ELDRED RESIDENCE114 CENTRAL AVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403SHORELINESTABILIZATIONSOUTH BURLINGTONBURLINGTON114 CENTRAL AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT7PROJECTLOCATIONE-001 EC SheetIntroductionThis project is subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizationfrom the State of Vermont to discharge construction related storm waterrunoff.Coverage under the State Construction General Permit 3-9020 isrequired for any construction activity that disturbs 1 or more acres ofland, or is part of a larger development plan that will disturb 1 or moreacres.This project has been deemed to qualify as a Low Risk Site which issubject to the erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC)standards set for in the State of Vermont'sLow Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and SedimentControlThe following narrative and implementation requirements represent theminimum standard for which this site is required to be maintained asregulated by the State of Vermont.Any best management practices (BMP's) depicted on the project's EPSCSite plan which go beyond the Handbook requirements are consideredto be integral to the management of the site and represent componentsof the municipal EPSC approval for the project which shall beimplemented.The EPSC plan depicts one snap shot in time of the site. Allconstruction sites are fluid in their day to day exposures and risks as itrelates to minimizing sediment loss from the site. It is theresponsibility of the Contractor to implement the necessary BMP'sto comply with the Low Risk Handbook standards outlined on thissheet based on the interim site disturbance conditions which may ormay not be shown on the EPSC Site Plan.Specific BMP's which are critical to allowing the project to be considereda Low risk site include the items checked below:xLimit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any onetime.xThere shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earthexposure in any location before temporary or final stabilization isimplemented.1. Mark Site BoundariesPurpose:Mark the site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. Delineatingyour site will help to limit the area of disturbance, preserve existingvegetation and limit erosion potential on the site.How to comply:Before beginning construction, walk the site boundaries and flag trees,post signs, or install orange safety fence. Fence is required on anyboundary within 50 feet of a stream, lake, pond or wetland, unless thearea is already developed (existing roads, buildings, etc.)2. Limit Disturbance AreaPurpose:Limit the amount of soil exposed at one time to reduce the potentialerosion on site.Requirements:The permitted disturbance area is specified on the site's writtenauthorization to discharge. Only the acreage listed on the authorizationform may be exposed at any given time.How to comply:Plan ahead and phase the construction activities to ensure that no morethan the permitted acreage is disturbed at one time. Be sure to properlystabilize exposed soil with seed and mulch or erosion control mattingbefore beginning work in a new section of the site.3. Stabilize Construction EntrancePurpose:A stabilized construction entrance helps remove mud from vehiclewheels to prevent tracking onto streets.Requirements:If there will be any vehicle traffic off of the construction site, you mustinstall a stabilized construction entrance before construction begins.How to installRock Size: Use a mix of 1 to 4 inch stoneDepth: 8 inches minimumWidth: 12 feet minimumLength: 40 feet minimum (or length of driveway, if shorter)Geotextile: Place filter cloth under entire gravel bedMaintenance:Redress with clean stone as required to keep sediment from trackingonto the street.4. Install Silt FencePurpose:Silt fences intercept runoff and allow suspended sediment to settle out.Requirements:Silt fence must be installed:xon the downhill side of the construction activitiesxbetween any ditch, swale, storm sewer inlet, or waters of the Stateand the disturbed soil* Hay bales must not be used as sediment barriers due to theirtendency to degrade and fall apart.Where to place:xPlace silt fence on the downhill edge of bare soil. At the bottom ofslopes, place fence 10 feet downhill from the end of the slope (ifspace is available).xEnsure the silt fence catches all runoff from bare soil.xMaximum drainage area is ¼ acre for 100 feet of silt fence.xInstall silt fence across the slope (not up and down hills!)xInstall multiple rows of silt fence on long hills to break up flow.xDo not install silt fence across ditches, channels, or streams or instream buffers.How to install silt fence:xDig a trench 6 inches deep across the slopexUnroll silt fence along the trenchxEnsure stakes are on the downhill side of the fencexJoin fencing by rolling the end stakes togetherxDrive stakes in against downhill side of trenchxDrive stakes until 16 inches of fabric is in trenchxPush fabric into trench; spread along bottomxFill trench with soil and pack downMaintenance:xRemove accumulated sediment before it is halfway up the fence.xEnsure that silt fence is trenched in ground and there are no gaps.5. Divert Upland RunoffPurpose:Diversion berms intercept runoff from above the construction site anddirect it around the disturbed area. This prevents clean water frombecoming muddied with soil from the construction site.Requirements:If storm water runs onto your site from upslope areas and your sitemeets the following two conditions, you must install a diversion bermbefore disturbing any soil.1. You plan to have one or more acres of soil exposed at any one time(excluding roads).2. Average slope of the disturbed area is 20% or steeper.How to install:1. Compact the berm with a shovel or earth-moving equipment.2. Seed and mulch berm or cover with erosion control mattingimmediately after installation.3. Stabilize the flow channel with seed and straw mulch or erosioncontrol matting. Line the channel with 4 inch stone if the channelslope is greater than 20%.4. Ensure the berm drains to an outlet stabilized with riprap. Ensure thatthere is no erosion at the outlet.5. The diversion berm shall remain in place until the disturbed areas arecompletely stabilized.6. Slow Down Channelized RunoffPurpose:Stone check dams reduce erosion in drainage channels by slowingdown the storm water flow.Requirements:If there is a concentrated flow (e.g. in a ditch or channel) of storm wateron your site, then you must install stone check dams. Hay bales mustnot be used as check dams.How to install:Height: No greater than 2 feet. Center of dam should be 9 inches lowerthan the side elevationSide slopes: 2:1 or flatterStone size: Use a mixture of 2 to 9 inch stoneWidth: Dams should span the width of the channel and extend up thesides of the banksSpacing: Space the dams so that the bottom (toe) of the upstream damis at the elevation of the top (crest) of the downstream dam. Thisspacing is equal to the height of the check dam divided by the channelslope.Spacing (in feet) = Height of check dam (in feet)/Slope in channel (ft/ft)Maintenance:Remove sediment accumulated behind the dam as needed to allowchannel to drain through the stone check dam and prevent large flowsfrom carrying sediment over the dam. If significant erosion occursbetween check dams, a liner of stone should be installed.7. Construct Permanent ControlsPurpose:Permanent storm water treatment practices are constructed to maintainwater quality, ensure groundwater flows, and prevent downstreamflooding. Practices include detention ponds and wetlands, infiltrationbasins, and storm water filters.Requirements:If the total impervious* area on your site, or within the common plan ofdevelopment, will be 1 or more acres, you must apply for a State Stormwater Discharge Permit and construct permanent storm water treatmentpractices on your site. These practices must be installed before theconstruction of any impervious surfaces.How to comply:Contact the Vermont Storm water Program and follow the requirementsin the Vermont Storm water Management Manual. The Storm waterManagement Manual is available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm*An impervious surface is a manmade surface, including, butnot limited to, paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, roofs,driveways, and walkways, from which precipitation runs off ratherthan infiltrates.8. Stabilize Exposed SoilPurpose:Seeding and mulching, applying erosion control matting, andhydroseeding are all methods to stabilize exposed soil. Mulches andmatting protect the soil surface while grass is establishing.Requirements:All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilizationwithin 7, 14, or 21 days of initial disturbance, as stated in the projectauthorization. After this time, any disturbance in the area must bestabilized at the end of each work day.The following exceptions apply:xStabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the areawithin the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast forthe next 24 hours.xStabilization is not required if the work is occurring in aself-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet orgreater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches).All areas of disturbance must have permanent stabilization within 48hours of reaching final grade.How to comply:Prepare bare soil for seeding by grading the top 3 to 6 inches of soil andremoving any large rocks or debris.Seeding Rates for Temporary StabilizationApril 15 - Sept. 15 --- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre)Sept. 15 - April 15 --- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acreSeeding Rates for Final Stabilization:ChooseMulching RatesApril 15 - Sept.15 -- Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.)Sept.15 - April 15 -- Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.)Erosion Control MattingAs per manufacturer's instructionsHydroseedAs per manufacturer's instructions9. Winter StabilizationPurpose:Managing construction sites to minimize erosion and prevent sedimentloading of waters is a year-round challenge. In Vermont, this challengebecomes even greater during the late fall, winter, and early springmonths.'Winter construction' as discussed here, describes the period betweenOctober 15 and April 15, when erosion prevention and sediment controlis significantly more difficult.Rains in late fall, thaws throughout the winter, and spring melt and rainscan produce significant flows over frozen and saturated ground, greatlyincreasing the potential for erosion.Requirements for Winter Shutdown:For those projects that will complete earth disturbance activities prior tothe winter period (October 15), the following requirements must beadhered to:1. For areas to be stabilized by vegetation, seeding shall be completedno later than September 15 to ensure adequate growth and cover.2. If seeding is not completed by September 15, additionalnon-vegetative protection must be used to stabilize the site for thewinter period. This includes use of Erosion Control Matting or nettingof a heavy mulch layer. Seeding with winter rye is recommended toallow for early germination during wet spring conditions.3. Where mulch is specified, apply roughly 2 inches with an 80-90%cover. Mulch should be tracked in or stabilized with netting in openareas vulnerable to wind.Requirements for Winter ConstructionIf construction activities involving earth disturbance continue pastOctober 15 or begin before April 15, the following requirements must beadhered to:1. Enlarged access points, stabilized to provide for snow stockpiling.2. Limits of disturbance moved or replaced to reflect boundary of winterwork.3. A snow management plan prepared with adequate storage andcontrol of meltwater, requiring cleared snow to be stored down slopeof all areas of disturbance and out of storm water treatment structures.4. A minimum 25 foot buffer shall be maintained from perimeter controlssuch as silt fence.5. In areas of disturbance that drain to a water body within 100 feet, tworows of silt fence must be installed along the contour.6. Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and icedams.7. Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must beinstalled ahead of frozen ground.8. Mulch used for temporary stabilization must be applied at double thestandard rate, or a minimum of 3 inches with an 80-90% cover.9. To ensure cover of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas ofdisturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, with thefollowing exceptions:x If no precipitation within 24 hours is forecast and work will resumein the same disturbed area within 24 hours, daily stabilization is notnecessary.x Disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as housefoundations or open utility trenches.10. Prior to stabilization, snow or ice must be removed to less than 1inch thickness.11. Use stone to stabilize areas such as the perimeter of buildingsunder construction or where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated.Stone paths should be 10 to 20 feet wide to accommodate vehiculartraffic.10. Stabilize Soil at Final GradePurpose:Stabilizing the site with seed and mulch or erosion control matting whenit reaches final grade is the best way to prevent erosion whileconstruction continues.Requirements:Within 48 hours of final grading, the exposed soil must be seeded andmulched or covered with erosion control matting.How to comply:Bring the site or sections of the site to final grade as soon as possibleafter construction is completed. This will reduce the need for additionalsediment and erosion control measures and will reduce the totaldisturbed area.For seeding and mulching rates, follow the specifications under Rule 8,Stabilizing Exposed Soil.11. Dewatering ActivitiesPurpose:Treat water pumped from dewatering activities so that it is clear whenleaving the construction site.Requirements:Water from dewatering activities that flows off of the construction sitemust be clear. Water must not be pumped into storm sewers, lakes, orwetlands unless the water is clear.How to comply:Using sock filters or sediment filter bags on dewatering discharge hosesor pipes, discharge water into silt fence enclosures installed in vegetatedareas away from waterways. Remove accumulated sediment after thewater has dispersed and stabilize the area with seed and mulch.12. Inspect Your SitePurpose:Perform site inspections to ensure that all sediment and erosion controlpractices are functioning properly. Regular inspections and maintenanceof practices will help to reduce costs and protect water quality.Requirements:Inspect the site at least once every 7 days and after every rainfall orsnow melt that results in a discharge from the site. Perform maintenanceto ensure that practices are functioning according to the specificationsoutlined in this handbook.In the event of a noticeable sediment discharge from the constructionsite, you must take immediate action to inspect and maintain existingerosion prevention and sediment control practices. Any visiblydiscolored storm water runoff to waters of the State must be reported.Forms for reporting discharges are available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htmN.T.S.CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAILREVISED 08/01/2014E-002E-002 Constr FenceWOOD POST30"18"EXISTING GRADENATIVE MATERIALPLASTIC ORANGECONSTRUCTION FENCEREVISED 08/01/2014E-004E-004 Constr. Ent20' (6m) RROADWAYAASTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEN.T.S.12'. MIN.50' MIN.SECTION A-ADIVERSION RIDGE REQUIREDWHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2%ROADWAY2% OR GREATERSPILLWAYFILTER FABRICSANDBAGS ORCONTINUOUS BERM OFEQUIVALENT HEIGHTDIVERSION RIDGESUPPLY WATER TO WASHWHEELS IF NECESSARY2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSEAGGREGATE MIN. 8"(150mm) THICKPLAN VIEWNOTES:1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAYREQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TOTRAP SEDIMENT.2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY.3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITHCRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENTBASIN.NOTE:USE SANDBAGS OR OTHERAPPROVED METHODS TOCHANNELIZE RUNOFF TOBASIN AS REQUIREDREVISED 08/01/2014E-003E-003 Silt FenceN.T.S.SILT FENCE DETAILNOTES:1. INSTALL MIRIFI ENVIROFENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL OR AS DETAILED HEREIN.2. INSTALL SILT FENCES AT TOES OF ALL UNPROTECTED SLOPES AND AS PARALLEL TOCONTOURS AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FILLED OR UNPROTECTED SLOPESCREATED DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED ON THE FINALPLANS. CURVE THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UP INTO THE SLOPE. REMOVE SEDIMENTWHEN ACCUMULATED TO HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SILT FENCES ARE TO BEMAINTAINED UNTIL SLOPES ARE STABILIZED.3. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BEOVERLAPPED BY 6", FOLDED AND STAPLED.10'10'2.5'METAL POST4 x 4 WOODPOST SPACING212 X 212 WOOD36" MIN.12" MIN.POST2"8"FILTER FABRIC TO BEMIRAFI 100X OR APPROVEDEQUALFILTER FABRIC TO BECLIPPED, BACKFILLED ANDTAMPED 8" BELOW GRADESTEEL OR WOOD STAKES(SEE CHART AT RIGHT)REVISED 08/01/2014E-005E-005 StockpileTEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAILN.T.S.TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHOR NETTINGSILT FENCE OR HAYBALES INSTALLED ONDOWN GRADIENT SIDEREVISED 08/01/2014E-007E-007 Infilt SectSILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAILN.T.S.2. ATTACH SILT FENCEAND EXTEND IT TOTHE TRENCH.3. STAPLE THE SILTFENCING TO THEEND POSTS.BACKFILL TRENCH.1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8" TRENCH, SET POST DOWNSLOPE.ANGLE 10°UPSLOPE FORSTABILITY ANDSELF CLEANINGPOSTSSILTFENCE100°12"MIN.8"COMPACTEDBACKFILL09/30/2016P:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15190\1-CADD Files-15190\Dwg\15190 Site.dwg, 9/30/2016 11:09:14 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_p relim_Nov_15_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 10, 2016 Plans received: September 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-29 JOHN P. LARKIN, INC. – 1185 & 1195 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting Date: November 15 , 2016 Applicant /Owner John P. Larkin 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Commercial 1 – Automobile Zoning District Engineer Rabideau Architects 550 Hinesburg Road, Suite 101 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin, Inc. & Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS The project before the Board is Phase I of the previously reviewed sketch plan application, which indicated up to four (4) phases impacting both the existing L&M Park PUD at 1185 Shelburne Road and the adjacent property of 1195 Shelburne Road. The project currently being proposed is almost entirely on 1185 Shelburne Road except for some parking and other infrastructure impacts at 1195 Shelburne Road. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and offer the following comments. 1. Since this is the first time the Board has seen this project in detail, staff recommends that the Board take some time to review the project overall before it begins reviewing the various aspects of the project. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: This information will be included in the comments for the next meeting. A) APPLICABILITY OF USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROACH The applicant is proposing to re-develop a portion of the L&M Park PUD and include additional land outside that PUD at 1195 Shelburne Road. An aspect of PUDs is that they be, according to Section 15.18(10), “consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” According to the Comprehensive Plan this project is located in the Southwest Quadrant where mixed use development along the Shelburne Road corridor is encouraged to promote pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, and shared parking opportunities. Furthermore, mixed use development and redevelopment is specifically encouraged on the west side of Shelburne Road south of I-189, which is where this project is located. One strategy promoted in the Southwest Quadrant by the Plan is to explore opportunities to create “nodes” of concentrated development and public activity along the Shelburne Road corridor. Staff considers that the plan presented by the applicant is in alignment with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, because it is located in an area targeted for mixed use and redevelopment and it could constitute a node of public activity due to its proposed combination of commercial and residential uses with shared parking. Staff, however, does encourage the applicant to explore additional variation in unit types (i.e. 2+ CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 3 bedroom units) in the building. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following:  to encourage innovation in design and layout,  efficient use of land, and  viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed project could meet the standards of being a PUD, because it combines residential and commercial uses on the property, reduces its parking needs through a shared parking plan, creatively incorporates green space for residents, and introduces an active streetscape along Shelburne Road. As during the sketch plan review phase, staff considered that additional measures by the applicant to make the sidewalk along Shelburne Road a learning opportunity, such as water infiltration-friendly pervious pavers and native plant species providing habitat for pollinators, could help the applicant meet the standard for innovation in design. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how innovative design and layout could be incorporated into the streetscape to support an active and interesting pedestrian route. B) 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: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 4 (A)(2) 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. This criterion will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project is ultimately envisioned by the applicant as being part of a larger, project of four (4) phases that would incorporate three (3) access points; however, in the current proposal, Phase 1, there would be one (1) access point from Fayette Road onto a private street. The application materials state there are currently 35.4 PM Peak Hour trip ends from the existing 60 unit extended stay hotel, which will be removed. According to the applicant, the proposed project and its uses will create 135.2 PM Peak Hour trip ends for a net gain of 99.8 PM Peak Hour trip ends. The traffic study, which is included in the packet, will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. (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. The proposed project is almost entirely on an already developed piece of land on which there are no wetlands or streams. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. According to the Comprehensive Plan this project is located in the Southwest Quadrant where mixed use development along the Shelburne Road corridor is encouraged to promote pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, and shared parking opportunities. One strategy promoted in the Southwest Quadrant by the Plan is to explore opportunities to create “nodes” of concentrated development and public activity along the Shelburne Road corridor. The proposed project promotes pedestrian movement by incorporating an active sidewalk design along a street which can be accessed via public transportation. Furthermore, the project will create a node of activity by incorporating several uses in the project area (residential, retail, and restaurant). The applicant has proposed placing the building and its entrances closer to the street than the current 30 foot setbacks would allow. Staff considers that buildings closer to the street would encourage pedestrian movement between businesses, which would support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In combination with the reduced setbacks the applicant is proposing a four (4) story building whose façades would step back above the second or third floor. This is intended to limit the impact of the buildings on the pedestrian experience by reducing the mass of building immediately visible from the sidewalk. Staff considers this criterion to be met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 5 (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 proposed project incorporates a considerable amount of density into the site and as such there is not a great amount of ground level open space which could be connected between parcels; however, the project does create open space for the residents of the building through the use of rooftop leisure areas. The plans indicate that the open space area is 31,597 sq. ft. which covers 28.5% of the site. Staff considers this criterion met. (A)(7) 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. This criterion will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. (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 landowners. This criterion will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. This criterion will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). As discussed above, staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Commercial 1-Automobile Zoning District. C) 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: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, staff considers that this criterion is being met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 6 B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) 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. The proposed building is located in an existing PUD in which there are an array of buildings of various styles, including a movie theater, office space, and fast food restaurant. Staff considers that the proposed building is an improvement for the larger PUD and could be a leader on Shelburne Road for other developments. The site incorporates a variety of plantings and walkways for pedestrians. While the proposed building will initially appear different from other buildings in the PUD, the applicant’s plan is to fully redevelop the site around the proposed building in phases and those buildings will be expected to relate well to one another and create desirable transitions. 3. The Board should discuss with the applicant the possibility of including additional doors facing Fayette Road and including a door to the apartment lobby facing Shelburne Road. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. Parking is proposed in the interior of the lot and along the proposed private street. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) 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 anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed building would be 54 feet in height at its highest point, which an architectural feature in the northeast corner designed to provide visual interest, and otherwise would be no more than 45 feet in height along the flat roof. Anticipated neighboring buildings would be of similar height when the remaining phases of the project are constructed. The hotel currently existing on the site and proposed for demolition is between two (2) and three (3) stories in height. Staff considers this criterion to be met and supports the height request. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 7 C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) 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. Currently existing buildings in the immediate vicinity are of various heights, but primarily one (1) to three (3) stories. Staff considers the proposed building will be taller than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, but not drastically so and its height will allow the type of development onsite that is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan goals discussed above. Staff considers that the transition between the proposed building and neighboring existing buildings will be accomplished through the use of plantings, which will soften the appearance of a building which has a larger mass than some nearby buildings. The impact of the building on adjacent structures will be limited through the use of architectural design, including balconies and stepping the building back away from the street on upper stories. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: 1. Access to Abutting Properties. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The proposed project includes land at 1195 Shelburne Road and that parcel is proposed to be accessed via three (3) access points from the 1185 Shelburne Road property where the majority of the redevelopment is currently proposed. Those access points include the proposed public street to the south and two (2) parking lot drives, all three of which will extend onto 1195 Shelburne Road. Since access to the abutting property is already included as part of the proposal, staff considers the reservation of land to be unnecessary. 2. Utility Services. 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 Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 3. Disposal of Wastes. 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). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 8 The site plan indicates one (1) exterior garbage dumpster, which is screened. The plans do not show an area for compost and recyclables collection. It is not clear to staff where residential tenants will dispose of their garbage, recycling, and compost. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide additional information regarding garbage, recycling, and composting facilities. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) 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 total cost of the project is estimated at $8,000,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $87,500 and the applicant is proposing $87,855. Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $75,000 Minimum Landscaping $ $87,500 Proposed Landscaping $87,855 The landscape plan appears to include street trees in the minimum landscaping budget. While staff supports the planting of these trees, street tree requirements do not count towards the minimum landscaping requirement. Applicant should propose revisions accordingly. The City Arborist submitted comments in an email to staff dated October 18, 2016: • Plantings along Shelburne Rd are in the State of Vermont Right of Way and are not maintained by the City of South Burlington. Should check with the Agency of Transportation regarding plantings in their Right of Way. • Would not recommend under planting shrubs and perennials along Shelburne Rd. This is where the snow and salt from 3 lanes of traffic and the sidewalk will end up • Any areas where trees are to be planted that are currently under pavement require soli replacement or soil restoration to a minimum depth of 2 feet to support tree growth • Elms in the western island should be relocated to take advantage of the larger soil volumes on the western side of the island • Due to their inherent tight branch structure, ‘Princeton’ Elms may pose structural problems as they mature, requiring pruning on a regular basis to reduce the potential for branch failure. For this reason a substitute species may want to be considered 5. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the City Arborist and recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to account for full minimum landscaping requirement exclusive of the street trees. Section 13.06(B)(2) requires that in all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 9 parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least 10% of the interior of the parking lot must be landscaped islands. The landscaping plan indicates the project meets this requirement by having 11.4% of the interior parking area landscaped. Section 13.06(B)(4)(b) states that at least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area for every five (5) parking spaces and that the trees should be spaced evenly throughout to provide shade and reduce glare. Staff considers that while there deciduous shade trees in certain areas of the parking lot that they are not evenly distributed, particularly the area closest to the proposed building and in the center median of the parking lot. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they want to address this issue so that the objective of reducing glare and providing share is met. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans depict snow storage areas. D) STORMWATER This criterion will be addressed in the comments for the next meeting. E) LIGHTING Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. Cuts sheets for the proposed light fixtures meet the requirements of Appendix D for minimizing glare and light trespass. The lighting plan submitted shows fixtures throughout the property. Staff considers this criterion to be met. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. It is not clear to staff at what height the light fixtures will be located and therefore staff cannot determine where the fixtures would be considered evenly distributed. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 10 7. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide information on the height at which the light fixtures will be mounted as part of the submittal for final plat. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. The lighting plan indicates that light trespass will be minimal and will be contained within the overall existing PUD and within the public street, Fayette Road. 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. It is not clear to staff from the materials submitted what material from which the poles will be constructed. 8. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant submit information about the material of the light poles as part of the submittal for final plat. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. As discussed above, the height of the poles cannot be determined by staff. 9. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant submit information regarding the height of the light poles as part of the submittal for final plat. F) WAIVERS The applicant has requested the following waivers (see discussion below): (a) Front yard setback to be reduced from 30 feet minimum along Fayette Road and 50 feet along Shelburne Road to 12 feet minimum (b) Front yard coverage limit of 30% maximum to be increased to 100% (c) Building height maximum of 35 feet (flat roof) to be increased to 45 feet for the flat roof of the building and 55 feet for a decorative feature on the northeast corner of the proposed building (d) Reduction in the minimum parking requirement from 183 spaces to 119 spaces for a total of 34% fewer spaces than the required minimum (a) & (b) Staff considers lessening the setback and front yard coverage could be positive for encouraging a pedestrian environment along Shelburne Road and Fayette Drive if the area is CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 11 appropriately landscaped. Staff considers that a well-designed sidewalk with a screening buffer of shade trees between the walk and the street would be a positive addition to the streetscape and encourage the use of the sidewalk by those living in and visiting the development. It appears to staff that as proposed the sidewalk along Shelburne Road would not have a buffer between it and the street ROW. 10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what, if any, buffer will be provided between the proposed sidewalk and Shelburne Road. (c). Staff considers that allowing additional height enables the project to better meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by allowing for residential density on upper floors with retail and restaurant uses on the ground level. The addition of an architectural element which rises above the flat roof could provide interest and variation to the building, which is encouraged. To evaluate a height waiver, Section 3.07(D) of the Land Development Regulations requires a number of elements, including that the plan demonstrate the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Staff considers that, if the requirements of the Section 3.07(D) are met, that a height waiver would be positive. 11. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant demonstrate meeting the requirements of Section 3.07(D). (d). All the commercial uses in the existing PUD are benefitted by a shared parking analysis which reduces the required parking requirement and an additional parking waiver. Staff does not understand the applicant’s revised shared parking analysis which is included in the applicant’s narrative which also appears to not include the commercial businesses in the PUD and recommends the Board request the applicant to provide a complete shared analysis. 12. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to submit a revised shared parking analysis for the all the commercial properties including the proposed building to comply with Section 13.01(E). G) OTHER ISSUES The applicant shows a sculpture on the northeast corner of the lot and partially outside the property bounds. It is not clear to staff how the applicant proposes to place the sculpture on public land and whether the applicant has discussed this feature with City staff; Planning & Zoning Department staff have not had a discussion about this feature with the applicant, but would be interested in doing so and could see this public art as potentially positive to the site and the streetscape. 13. Staff recommends the applicant discuss with City staff the location of the sculpture. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_29_1185_1195ShelburneRoad_JohnPLarkinInc_PUD_prelim_Nov_15_2016_mtg 12 Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer REPORT LARKIN TERRACE MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 11.3.2016 180 Battery Street, Suite 350 Burlington, VT 05401 802.383.0118 www.rsginc.com PREPARED FOR: LARKIN REALTY SUBMITTED BY: RSG MARK SMITH, PE; DAVID GROVER, PE LARKIN TERRACE MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PREPARED FOR: LARKIN REALTY CONTENTS i 1.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Congestion analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 LOCAL TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................. 3 4.0 ANALYSIS TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................................... 4 4.2 | Background Traffic Volumes and Adjustments ............................................................................. 5 4.3 | Other Development Volumes ........................................................................................................ 5 4.4 | Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.5 | Existing Site Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.6 | Scenario Volume Graphics ............................................................................................................ 8 5.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 10 5.1 | Level-of-Service Definition ........................................................................................................... 10 5.2 | Level-of-Service Results .............................................................................................................. 11 6.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 12 7.1 | Crash Histories ............................................................................................................................ 12 7.2 | Sight Distance Observations ....................................................................................................... 14 8.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 15 9.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND TRANSPORTATION OVERLAY DISTRICT ................................ 16 ii November 3, 2016 9.1 | Act 145 Traffic Impact Fees ......................................................................................................... 16 9.2 | City of South Burlington Impact Fees .......................................................................................... 17 9.3 | City of South Burlington Traffic Overlay District .......................................................................... 18 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 18 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Congestion analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 1: ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................ 1 FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SITE PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 3: PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ...................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 4: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF SITE-GENERATED TRIPS.............................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 6: 2017 PEAK HOUR NO BUILD ........................................................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 7: 2017 PEAK HOUR BUILD .............................................................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 8: 2022 PEAK HOUR NO BUILD ........................................................................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 9: 2022 PEAK HOUR BUILD ............................................................................................................................................ 10 FIGURE 10: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ................................ 10 FIGURE 11: PM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 12: AVERAGE MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTHS (VEHICLES) ............................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 14: STUDY AREA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY ............................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 15: CRASHES BY MONTH OF YEAR .............................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 16: CRASHES BY YEAR .................................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 17: CRASHES BY TYPE................................................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 18: DISTRIBUTION OF NEW TRIPS TO SURROUNDING AREAS .................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 19: PROJECTED SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE .................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 20: TRIP BUDGET SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 21: ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ADJUSTMENTS APPENDIX B. TRIP GENERATION APPENDIX C. SYNCHRO REPORTS APPENDIX D. SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS APPENDIX E. SAFETY DATA 1 1.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS The proposed Larkin Terrace development is located in South Burlington, Vermont along US 7 at the intersection of Fayette Drive. The development will replace an existing 54-unit apartment-style hotel and will create 54 apartments, a 2,000-squarefoot restaurant, and 18,250 square feet of retail space. Vehicular traffic will access the site from Fayette Drive approximately 200 feet west of its intersection with US-7. Key project findings include: TRIP GENERATION After accounting for internal trip capture and transportation demand management, we project the proposed development will generate an additional 50 PM peak hour trips compared to the existing vehicle trip generation at the site driveway and a net 44 PM peak hour trips on the surrounding roads network (Figure 1). FIGURE 1: ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CONGESTION ANALYSIS Traffic along Fayette Drive will continue to experience minimal delays (LOS A) with and without the project. Access driveways for both the site and the plaza across the street will maintain LOS B. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis presented in this report, we conclude that construction of the proposed Larkin Terrace development will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the local roadway network and will not adversely impact the public investment in roadway infrastructure in the adjacent area. Enter Exit Apartments (54 units)22 12 34 Specialty Retail Center (18,250 sq ft)22 28 50 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (2,000 sq ft)12 8 20 Total 56 48 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Internal vs External Trips 14 14 42 34 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Development PM Peak Hour Traffic 38 32 4 2 76 6% TDM Primary Trip Reduction 36 30 4 2 72 Existing trips 10 12 0 0 22 Net PM Peak Hour Traffic 26 18 4 2 50 Primary Passby Total Projected Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Total Internal Trips External Tips Total Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 2 November 3, 2016 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study evaluates the traffic and related infrastructure impacts associated with the proposed Larkin Terrace project on Fayette Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. The site currently contains a 54-unit all suites hotel. This building will be removed and replaced with a four-story building that will contain 54 apartments, a 2,000 square-foot restaurant, and 18,250 square feet of retail space. As shown in the site plan below, the proposed development will have one access point via an existing curb cut on Fayette Drive approximately 200 feet west of the intersection with US-7. FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY PROJECT SITE PLAN This study relies upon design standards and analysis procedures documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,1 Trip Generation,2 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,3 Manual on Uniform 1 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2010). 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 9th Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012). 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition (Washington DC: AASHTO, 2011). 3 Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),4 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,5 and the Vermont State Design Standards,6 which are the generally accepted traffic analysis references relied upon by traffic engineering professionals and VTrans for projects of this type in Vermont. VTrans guidelines specify that a traffic study should be considered if the proposed development will generate 75 or more peak hour trips. The geographic scope of the study should also include the immediate access points and those intersections or highway segments receiving 75 or more project- generated peak hour trips.7 We project that the site driveway will not meet the 75 vehicles per hour trip generation threshold. Therefore, the site driveway is the only intersection assessed for capacity and congestion impacts. The intersection of US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue is part of a high crash location segment, so we examine crashes at this location. We also examine the distribution of project related trips at the site driveway and the US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue intersection for permitting purposes. 3.0 LOCAL TRAFFIC The project site is located on Fayette Drive. It is a two-lane, local road 40 feet wide at the site driveway and posted at 25 miles per hour. It connects US-7 (Shelburne Road) to the east with Hannafords Drive to the north. The road is unstriped until lane markings begin at the intersection with US-7 and leading up to Hannafords Drive. Across from the project driveway is a plaza housing a bank, a fast food restaurant, an urgent care facility, a sit-down restaurant, a gym, and two currently vacant store fronts. The section of US-7 proximate to Fayette Drive is a five-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane) with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. In 2015, VTrans recorded an annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of 31,130 vehicles per day along US-7 at station D577, approximately 0.4 miles south of the US-7/Fayette Drive intersection. Count data collected by VTrans in June of 2016 indicate the highest traffic volumes along US-7 occur during the weekday PM peak hours. Traffic impacts during this period are examined in this study. Figure 3 show the project location and study area intersections. This study only examines the PM traffic conditions. Background traffic during the PM period is greater than in the AM in the project area, so any operational findings for the PM peak hour will be the same or less favorable than findings for the AM peak hour. 4 American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), ITE, and AASHTO, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition (Washington DC: FHWA, 2009). 5 Vermont Agency of Transportation, Development Review Section, Traffic Impact Evaluation Study and Review Guide (October 2008). 6 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Vermont State Standards (Montpelier: VTrans, 1 July 1997). 7 Vermont Agency of Transportation, Development Review Section, Traffic Impact Evaluation Study and Review Guide (January 2003). Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 4 November 3, 2016 FIGURE 3: PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS 4.0 ANALYSIS TRAFFIC VOLUMES This analysis examines design hour vehicle delays and queues at the site driveway and project trip distribution at the following two intersections: 1. Site Driveway/Fayette Drive 2. US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue (trip distribution only) Vehicle delays and queues are examined first with baseline, No Build scenario, traffic volumes, which represent the anticipated design hour conditions in the target study years without the proposed development in place. Once baseline conditions are established, anticipated traffic associated with the proposed development is added to the No Build scenario volumes to create Build scenario traffic volumes, which are in turn used to project intersection delays and levels of service with the proposed development in place. A detailed description of the elements that contribute to the No Build and Build scenario traffic volumes is presented below. Project Site Study Intersections 5 4.2 | BACKGROUND TRAFFIC V OLUMES AND ADJUSTMENTS RSG obtained the most recent VTrans turning movement count data at the US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue intersection (counted on June 30, 2016). This count data was used to establish background volumes at the site driveway. Trip Generation was used to establish turning movements at the site driveway and at the plaza driveway across the street. Following VTrans traffic study guidelines, raw peak hour traffic volumes were adjusted to represent the design hour volume (DHV)8 in 2017 and 20229 using two adjustment factors: 1. Design hour adjustment factors are based on VTrans count station D577, which is located along US-7 in South Burlington, VT, just south of the intersection with IDX Drive. The 2015 DHV at this station was compared to the peak hour volumes at the intersection of US- 7/Holmes Road/IDX Drive on the date of the turning movement count to formulate DHV adjustments. This intersection is 0.3 miles south of the US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue intersection and both intersections were counted on the same day. DHV adjustments decreased raw count volumes by 4%. 2. An annual adjustment factor representing general background traffic growth is based on historic count data at VTrans count station D577. From 2010 to 2015, AADT changed from 29,300 to 31,130 vehicles per day, or 1% per year. An annual adjustment factor of 2% was applied to the DHV adjusted counts to grow the traffic from 2015 to 2017. Traffic volumes on US-7 are expected to grow by 5% from the 2017 base year condition to the 2022 future year condition. 4.3 | OTHER DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES Other development volumes (ODVs) represent trips generated by anticipated developments in the study area. Trips generated by ODVs are included in every scenario (both No Build and Build) because we assume they are already present on the road network in the analysis years. Through discussion with South Burlington Planning and Zoning staff, the following ODV was identified for inclusion in this study:  65 apartments are planned along Green Mountain Drive, approximately 0.6 miles south of the Fayette Drive intersection with US-7. Per Trip Generation, this development is expected to generate 40 trips. Based on the 2016 turning movements at the US-7/Green Mountain Drive intersection, about half of these trips travel through the US-7/Fayette Drive Intersection. No formal traffic study was conducted for this intersection. 4.4 | TRIP GENERATION Trip generation refers to the number of new vehicle trips originating at or destined for a particular development. Traffic generated by the Larkin Terrace development will consist of apartment residents, retail store patrons, and restaurant patrons. 8 The DHV is the 30th highest hour of traffic for the year and is used as the design standard in Vermont. 9 VTrans requires analysis during the year project construction is expected to be complete and in a future year scenario 5 years after project completion. Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 6 November 3, 2016 To estimate the number of new vehicle trips for the Larkin Terrace development, we examined trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation.10 Applying trip generation rates for ITE Land Use 220 (Apartment), Land Use Code 826 (Specialty Retail Center), and Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant), we calculate the proposed expansion will generate 104 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. This development consists of several different types of uses allowing trips originating from one land use who may be destined for another land use to travel within the development. For example, an apartment resident may walk to the onsite retail stores, or a restaurant patron may go home to an apartment. These trips are said to be captured internally and are not counted towards the number of trips generated by the development on the adjacent transportation network. We used the ITE Trip Generation Handbook11 to calculate a 27% reduction due to internal capture. Internal capture calculations are included in the Appendix. External site generated traffic can be differentiated between primary and pass-by trips. While primary trips represent people who leave their home, place of work, or other origin expressly to visit the site and who would not otherwise have gotten into their vehicle to make a trip, pass-by trips represent vehicles that currently pass by the site on the local road network and who, when the proposed development is present, turn into the site on their way to another destination. Pass-by trips are converted from through movements to turning movements to and from the site at the development access points but do not add new trips to intersections beyond the site access. Pass-by traffic is typically assumed to come from vehicles passing by the site on an immediately adjacent roadway to which the site directly accesses. However, due to the relatively low volume of through traffic along Fayette Drive in the vicinity of the site and the relatively high volume of traffic on US-7, we have assumed the pass-by portion of trip generation will come from US-7 through trips at its intersection with Fayette Drive. Due to the nature of the project, the percentage of pass-by trips will vary by land use, and, according to Trip Generation, will be approximately 8% of site generated traffic. Transportation demand management (TDM) is the practice of reducing the number of trips during peak hour travel times by providing alternative travel means (discussed in further detail later in this study). Physical TDM measures include being located near a bus stop with a shelter, having access to and providing continuity of sidewalks and transit near building entrances, and providing bicycle racks. These TDM accommodations can facilitate up to a 6% reduction in external vehicle trip generation12 (the maximum allowed for only physical TDM measures). The site currently contains a 54-room apartment style hotel which, according to Trip Generation, currently generates 10 and 12 entering and exiting trips respectively during the PM peak hour. These 22 trips are subtracted from the development traffic to find the net number of trips that this development will add to the surrounding road network. 10 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 9th Edition (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012). 11 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001). 12 Vermont Agency of Transportation. TDM Guidance. 2016. 7 Figure 4 presents the projected trip generation, broken out into total trips, internal capture, primary traffic, TDM reduction, and pass-by traffic. FIGURE 4: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Figure 5 presents a map of the estimated distribution of project-generated trips. Primary and pass-by trips entering and exiting the site access are distributed onto the roadway network based on background traffic volumes. As discussed above, the reduction in through traffic at the US-7 intersection is due to pass-by traffic and corresponds with an increase in turns into and out of Fayette Drive as vehicles that previously passed by the site divert into the site once the development is complete. FIGURE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF SITE-GENERATED TRIPS Enter Exit Apartments (54 units)22 12 34 Specialty Retail Center (18,250 sq ft)22 28 50 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (2,000 sq ft)12 8 20 Total 56 48 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Internal vs External Trips 14 14 42 34 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Development PM Peak Hour Traffic 38 32 4 2 76 6% TDM Primary Trip Reduction*36 30 4 2 72 Existing trips 10 12 0 0 22 Net PM Peak Hour Traffic 26 18 4 2 50 Primary Passby Total Projected Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Total Internal Trips External Tips Total 0 0 0 5 -2 0 0 0 2 0 0 C10 0 0 I10 1 10 20 7 0 11 0 9 14 -1 0 Site Driveway US-7 Plaza Drive US-7 Fayette DriveMcIntosh Avenue Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 8 November 3, 2016 4.5 | EXISTING SITE TRAFFIC The existing 54-unit apartment-style hotels generates 22 trips during the PM peak hour. This building would be replaced by the proposed development. Traffic volumes estimated at the site driveway include these 22 trips as well as trips coming from and going to the plaza across Fayette Drive. Due to the vacant units, total number of trips associated with the plaza driveway were estimated from Trip Generation assuming full occupancy. 4.6 | SCENARIO VOLUME GRAPHICS Figure 6 through Figure 9 present the No Build and Build scenario traffic volumes at the two study area intersections in the build year (2017) and the future year (2022). No Build traffic volumes include the raw count volumes, adjusted to design hour conditions, and projected traffic from recently permitted developments in the area (ODVs). Build scenario volumes represent the addition of project-generated traffic (both primary and pass-by trips) to the No Build traffic volumes. With the addition of site-generated traffic, volumes entering and exiting the project site increase in the Build scenario and these trips are carried out through the neighboring intersections. The reduction in through traffic at the US-7 intersection in the Build scenario is due to the increase in pass-by traffic as described in the Trip Generation discussion above. These trips previously passed- by Fayette Drive in the No Build scenario but turn into and out of the site once the project is in place. FIGURE 6: 2017 PEAK HOUR NO BUILD 57 0 38 52 1232 22 42 62 41 18 132 C10 193 7 I10 10 4 6 126 21 7 0 5 200 1246 16 Site Driveway US-7 Plaza Drive US-7 Fayette DriveMcIntosh Avenue 9 FIGURE 7: 2017 PEAK HOUR BUILD FIGURE 8: 2022 PEAK HOUR NO BUILD 57 0 38 57 1230 22 42 62 43 18 132 C10 193 7 I10 11 14 26 133 21 18 0 14 214 1245 16 Site Driveway US-7 Plaza Drive US-7 Fayette DriveMcIntosh Avenue59 0 40 54 1293 24 44 66 43 18 138 C10 203 7 I10 10 4 6 133 22 7 0 5 210 1308 16 Site Driveway US-7 Plaza Drive US-7 Fayette DriveMcIntosh Avenue Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 10 November 3, 2016 FIGURE 9: 2022 PEAK HOUR BUILD 5.0 CONGESTION ANALYSIS 5.1 | LEVEL-OF-SERVICE DEFINITION Level-of-service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is calculated using the procedures outlined in the 2000 and 2010 Highway Capacity Manuals.13 In addition to traffic volumes, key inputs include the number of lanes at each intersection, traffic control type (signalized or unsignalized), and the traffic signal timing plans. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual defines six qualitative grades to describe the level of service at an intersection. Level-of-Service is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Figure 10 shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. FIGURE 10: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED LOS CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL DELAY (SEC) TOTAL DELAY (SEC) A Little or no delay ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0 B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0 13 The HCM 2010 does not provide methodologies for calculating intersection delays at certain intersection types including signalized intersections with exclusive pedestrian phases and signalized intersections with non NEMA-standard phasing. Because of these limitations, HCM 2000 methodologies are employed where necessary. 59 0 40 59 1291 24 44 66 45 18 138 C10 203 7 I10 11 14 26 140 22 18 0 14 224 1307 16 Site Driveway US-7 Plaza Drive US-7 Fayette DriveMcIntosh Avenue 11 The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver’s expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-way stop-controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated. The VTrans policy on level of service is:  Overall LOS C should be maintained for state-maintained highways and other streets accessing the state’s facilities  Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis when considering, at minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C.  LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two-lane approach) at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Detailed Synchro LOS worksheets are available in Appendix B. 5.2 | LEVEL-OF-SERVICE RESULTS The Highway Capacity Manual congestion reports within Synchro (v9), a traffic analysis software package from Trafficware, routinely relied upon by transportation engineering professionals, were used to assess traffic congestion at the site driveway. During the weekday PM peak hour, overall delays at the site driveway are projected to increase by approximately 1 seconds in the 2022 Build scenario, and overall LOS A is maintained in both 2017 and 2022, with the addition of project generated traffic. Weekday PM peak hour approach delays on Fayette Drive at the site driveway are projected to remain essentially unchanged and remain at LOS A with the addition of project generated traffic in both 2017 and 2022. Figure 11 presents the LOS results during the weekday PM peak hour. FIGURE 11: PM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS Intersections LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Fayette Rd / Project Drive Overall A 3 -A 3 -A 3 -A 4 - EB, along Fayette Dr A 2 -A 2 -A 2 -A 2 - WB, along Fayette Dr A 0 -A <1 -A <1 -A <1 - NB, exiting Site Drive B 11 -B 12 -B 12 -B 12 - SB, exiting plaza drive B 12 -B 12 -B 12 -B 12 - PM Peak Hour 2017 No Build 2017 Build 2022 No Build 2022 Build Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 12 November 3, 2016 6.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS In addition to the congestion analysis, estimated average maximum queues were evaluated using SimTraffic.14 With the addition of project generated traffic, queues at the Fayette Drive/Project driveway intersection are projected to increase by one vehicles at the project driveway (Figure 12). Detailed SimTraffic queuing worksheets are available in Appendix D. FIGURE 12: AVERAGE MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTHS (VEHICLES) 7.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS 7.1 | CRASH HISTORIES VTrans maintains a statewide database of all reported crashes along all state highways and federal aid road segments.15 Crash histories were collected from the VTrans Public Crash Data Query Tool16 for the 5-year period associated with the most recent VTrans High Crash Location Report17 (January 2010-December 2014). Within this 5-year period, one crash occurred within design stopping sight distance (155 feet at 25 miles per hour) of the site access point. This crash was from a left turn out of the plaza driveway across from the site access. The US-7/Fayette Drive/McIntosh Avenue intersection is part of a designated VTrans High Crash Location (HCL) segment, which means the actual crash rate observed over the past five years is higher than comparable segments across the state with similar functional classification and traffic levels. Since traffic from this development will have an effect on this intersection, we examined crashes on US-7 within the stopping sight distance (250 feet at 35 miles per hour) of the intersection. One injury and one fatality resulted from the 47 crashes at this intersection. This section is ranked 551 out of 647 sections (lower numbers are more severe). As indicated in Figure 13, crashes in this area occur most frequently when there is more traffic on the roads during the later half of the day. Crashes are more prevalent in the second half of the year although there is no clear correlation between crashes and time of year (Figure 14). The five-year 14 Five hour-long simulations were averaged together to estimate queue lengths. As each run is different, a difference in a few cars should not be seen as significant. 15 This data is exempt from Discovery or Admission under 23 U.S.C. 409. 16 http://apps.vtrans.vermont.gov/CrashPublicQueryTool/ 17 http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/2010- 2014%20Formal%20High%20Crash%20Location%20Report.pdf No Build Build No Build Build Fayette Rd / Project Drive EB, along Fayette Dr 0 0 0 0 WB, along Fayette Dr 0 0 0 0 NB, exiting Site Drive 0 1 0 1 SB, exiting plaza drive 2 2 2 2 PM Peak Hour 2017 2022 13 trend does not show any significant change in crash rate over the past five years of available data (Figure 15). FIGURE 13: STUDY AREA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY FIGURE 14: CRASHES BY MONTH OF YEAR FIGURE 15: CRASHES BY YEAR Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 14 November 3, 2016 About half the crashes are rear end crashes, which indicates that congestion is the major issue driving crashes at this location (Figure 16). No mitigation is recommended in connection with this development. FIGURE 16: CRASHES BY TYPE 7.2 | SIGHT DISTANCE OBSERVATIONS As defined in the 2011 publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), sight distance is the “the length of roadway ahead that is visible to the driver.”18 Sight distances of sufficient length are necessary at all points along a roadway to ensure vehicles can safely stop or avoid colliding with potential obstructions or other vehicles on the roadway. Standard practice in assessing intersection safety and operations involves measuring two separate sight distances – stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance. In this section, we examine sight distances at the site driveway on Fayette Drive. Stopping sight distance is the visible distance along a roadway between an advancing motorist and a potential obstacle in the roadway. It is measured from a point representing the approaching driver’s eye and a point representing an obstacle in the roadway. Stopping sight distances of adequate length are needed along all roadways, both at and away from intersections, so that drivers travelling at design speeds can react to potential obstacles and safely brake to avoid collisions. Design minimum stopping sight distances are calculated based on factors such as design speed, response times, and grades as reported in the 2011 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.19 Intersection sight distance is the distance available along the major road travelled way corresponding with the maximum visibility between an advancing motorist on the major road and an 18 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Page 3-2. 19 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Page 3-5. 15 entering motorist on an intersecting minor road. It is measured between a point representing the advancing driver’s eye above the major road and the entering driver’s eye above the intersecting road. The 2011 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets states that the available intersection sight distance should be at least equal to the required stopping sight distance along the major road, which in this case equals 155 feet. “Sight distance is also provided at intersections to allow the drivers of stopped vehicles a sufficient view of the intersecting highway to decide when to enter the intersecting highway or to cross it. If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions.” 20 However, when possible it is desirable to have intersection sight distances that exceed the design minimum stopping sight distances in order to offer improved operations, such that major road traffic need not decelerate to accommodate entering traffic. “However, in some cases a major-road vehicle may need to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor road vehicle. To enhance traffic operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distances are desirable along the major road.” 21 Based on the posted speed limit of 25 mph for Fayette Drive, the design minimum stopping sight distance and intersection sight distances is 155 feet and the ideal target intersection sight distance is 280 feet. On October 19, 2016, we observed sight distances at the site driveway and along Fayette Drive, and found both stopping and intersection sight distances to meet these standards to the south. The distance between the site driveway and Fayette Drive’s intersection with US-7 to the north is less than the intersection sight distance for vehicles turning right out of the site driveway, and vehicles can see clear to the intersection. 8.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Recent VTrans guidance22 defines Transportation Demand Management (TDM) as “a broad set of strategies that strive to either reduce or reallocate automobile travel to achieve benefits such as reduced roadway congestion, improved air quality, reduced energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, reduced parking demand, improved public health for those biking or walking, and reduced commuting and travel costs.” This guidance suggests several measures, and combinations of measures, for TDM that help reduce trip generation from new developments. Specifically, these reductions are applied to the expected trip rates computed from Trip Generation as a percentage. 20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Page 9-29 21 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition (Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Page 9-29 22 March 2016, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Guidance, VTrans Policy & Planning Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 16 November 3, 2016 Relevant measures proposed by the Larkin Terrace development fall into the Physical category, and include: - Project location in a mixed use urban area, and on a moderate service transit line (headways of 30 minutes or less) - A bus stop with a shelter within 600 ft. of the project entrance. - Bicycle racks located conveniently on-site - A site design with connections to adjacent sidewalks and transit stop(s) Per the VTrans methodology, each measure has a percent trip reduction associated with it. The aggregate for this development exceeds the maximum allowed of 6%; thus a 6% reduction was applied. 9.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND TRANSPORTATION OVERLAY DISTRICT The Larkin Terrace development is potentially subject to two separate Traffic Impact Fees from the City of South Burlington and Act 145. The project also has trips that enter an intersection within South Burlington’s Transportation Overlay District. This section provides regulators with sufficient information to calculate relevant fees and insure that the development is compliant with the current regulations. 9.1 | ACT 145 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Act 145 requires new developments to pay part of the costs of VTrans funded transportation improvements that their trips will impact. Although there are currently no VTrans funded improvements in the project’s immediate vicinity, we understand VTrans’ policy is to look at the trip distribution and determine if any trips may travel through a location of planned improvements. Figure 17 summarizes the distribution of the 44 new trips to/from surrounding areas. 17 FIGURE 17: DISTRIBUTION OF NEW TRIPS TO/FROM SURROUNDING AREAS 9.2 | CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FE ES This City Impact Fee Ordinance levies a Road Improvement Impact Fee for residential developments that increase the number of residential dwelling units or non-residential developments that increase the number of PM peak hour trips. Since the 54-unit apartment building is replacing the 54-unit all-suites hotel, there is no increase in residential dwelling units. The proposed development is expected to generate 70 non-residential trips. 21 of these are expected to be captured internally for a net creation of 49 non-residential trips At $999.86 per trip, the fee before credits and Traffic Demand Management is $48.993.14. Figure 18 summarizes the projected Road Improvement Impact Fee for the development calculations. This fee does not include credit for past tax payments ($1.97 per $1,000 of assessed value) and future tax payments ($0.39 per $1,000 of assessed value)23. It also does not include credits for any TDM measures that the development and the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer agree to. 23 City of South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, Amended May 19, 2014 1 0 11 10 3 1 Project Site 5 13 Larkin Realty Larkin Terrace Multi-Use Development Traffic Impact Study 18 November 3, 2016 FIGURE 18: PROJECTED SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE 9.3 | CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON TRAFFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT South Burlington restricts traffic from developments that used roadways within its Traffic Overlay District. This parcel is in Traffic Overlay Zone 2C (access to a high-volume roadway via a public roadway or a private driveway with a roundabout or a signalized intersection) and has a budget of 0.75 trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf)24. With a parcel size estimate of 110 ksf, it is limited to a maximum of 83 trips accessing the US-7/Fayette Drive intersection (Figure 19). This trip budget relates to the total number of trips generated by the site that accesses the high-volume roadway regardless of existing trips. FIGURE 19: TRIP BUDGET SUMMARY Based on background traffic at the site driveway, we estimate that 52.3% of primary trips (35) and all pass-by trips (6) will use the Fayette Drive/US-7 intersection, for a total of 41 trips accessing US-7. This trip generation is less than the 83-trip maximum. 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RSG has conducted an analysis of traffic impacts associated with the proposed Larkin Terrace development located in South Burlington, Vermont. The proposed development would be 54 apartments, a 2,000-squarefoot restaurant, and 18,250 square feet of retail space. The project would 24 South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 2016. 10(F), p 179, 30 trips per 40,000 square feet Enter Exit Apartments (54 units)n/a n/a 0 Specialty Retail Center (18,250 sq ft)22 28 50 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (2,000 sq ft)12 8 20 Total 34 36 70 Enter Exit Enter Exit Internal vs External Trips 10 11 24 25 70 Enter Exit Enter Exit Development PM Peak Hour Traffic 20 23 4 2 49 $999.86 per trip PM Peak hour Trip End $19,997.20 $22,996.78 $3,999.44 $1,999.72 $48,993.14 Primary Passby Total Projected South Burlington Impact Fee PM Peak Hour Total Internal Trips External Tips Total Parcel T.O. Zone Budget*Area (ksf)Max Trips Development Parcel 2C 0.75 110 83 *Trips/ksf, based on 30 trips per 40,000 sf 19 replace an existing 54-unit apartment-style hotel. The site entrance and exit will be on the Fayette Drive approximately 200 feet west of US-7 and aligned opposite an existing plaza access. Key project findings include: TRIP GENERATION We project the proposed development will generate approximately 50 net trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Of this total, we project that 6 trips will be pass-by trips (vehicles already passing by the site on US-7) meaning the development with add 44 trips to the surrounding roads network as shown in Figure 20. FIGURE 20: ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CONGESTION ANALYSIS Traffic along Fayette Drive will continue to experience minimal delays (LOS A) with and without the project. Access driveways for both the site and the plaza across the street will maintain LOS B. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis presented in this report, we conclude that construction of the proposed Larkin Terrace development will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the local roadway network and will not adversely impact the public investment in roadway infrastructure in the adjacent area. Enter Exit Apartments (54 units)22 12 34 Specialty Retail Center (18,250 sq ft)22 28 50 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (2,000 sq ft)12 8 20 Total 56 48 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Internal vs External Trips 14 14 42 34 104 Enter Exit Enter Exit Development PM Peak Hour Traffic 38 32 4 2 76 6% TDM Primary Trip Reduction 36 30 4 2 72 Existing trips 10 12 0 0 22 Net PM Peak Hour Traffic 26 18 4 2 50 Primary Passby Total Projected Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Total Internal Trips External Tips Total APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ADJUSTMENTS PM11/03/16 04:30 PMEnterExitEnterExitEnterExitEnterExit261465 appartmentsPM261844PM426PM302050Synchro2015 DHV at D577 on US-7 in South Burlington281010494Plaza across stNodeEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSB1US-7 & MCINTOSH AVL422120423 L412120022LL412120022L212L02L20140L432121422L432221024L452222424SOUTH BURLINGTONT71012671246 T71012391219T713T71012461232T01T0-1-2T01-1-2T71112451230T71013081293T711130712916/30/2016R1291816533036R1261816522970R20R1261816522990R5323R223R700526R1331816573016R1331816543138R14018165931645th ThursdayEnter17849148713223036Enter17448145512932970Enter0071320Enter17448146213062990Enter7112323Enter20103Enter9113326Enter18349147513093016Enter18350153413713138Enter1925115471374316430414753Exit46267132713963036D577 peak on TM count date2930Exit45261129813662970Exit0071320Exit45261130513792990Exit0162523Exit04-103Exit0201526Exit45281130613843016Exit47274137014473138Exit47294137114523164% Trucks0%0%3%3% DHV Adjustment0.96Peds40842015-2017 Growth1.02Total Adjustment0.98EBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSBEBWBNBSB2Site DrivewayL426738 L426738LL426738L1611L4L020110L42261838L446740L44261840SOUTH BURLINGTONT132193 T13219300TT13219300TTT0000T13219300T13820300T1382030006/30/16R462557544.6R462557545R0R462557545R10744R26R1009050R14621457595R466559572R146614596225th ThursdayEnter1772611294545Enter1772611294545Enter00000Enter1772611294545Enter101618044Enter04206Enter102020050Enter1872813294595Enter1862741299572Enter1962943299622ITE Trip Gen / Node 1Exit174257104105451.01 peak on TM count dateExit17425710410545Exit00000Exit17425710410545Exit71102644Exit20046Exit91103050Exit18326810440595Exit18327010910572Exit19228110940622% Trucks DHV Adjustment52.3%primary trips to/from US-7Peds2015-2017 Growth35primary trips to/from US-76pass-by trips to/from US-741total trips to/from US-7Total Adjustment1.00(no credit for ex. Trips)20172017(Primary)(Pass by)ODVsGreen Mtn DriveTrip Generation Trip Generation(Pass by)Trip Generation201720172022Raw Count DataAdjusted Raw CountsDHV & Annual Adjustments (3) to2022BuildNo BuildNo BuildBuild16:15-17:15Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX B. TRIP GENERATION Apartment Name 0 Number of Studies 90 Size 54 Number of Dwelling Units Average Size of Independent Variable 233 % Enter 65%Range of Rates (low)0.10 % Exit 35%Range of Rates (high)1.64 Passby Rate 0%Standard Deviation 0.82 Total TG Prim. Enter Prim. Exit Pass. Enter Pass. Exit 110%AvgRt 0.68 Average Trip Rate 0.62 33 22 12 0 0 r2 0.77 47 31 17 0 0 All-Suites Hotel Name 0 Number of Studies 5 Size -54 Rooms Average Size of Independent Variable 216 % Enter 45%Range of Rates (low)0.32 % Exit 55%Range of Rates (high)0.47 Passby Rate 0%Standard Deviation 0.63 Total TG Prim. Enter Prim. Exit Pass. Enter Pass. Exit 110%AvgRt 0.44 Average Trip Rate 0.4 -22 -10 -12 0 0 r2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Specialty Retail Center Name 0 Number of Studies 5 Size 18 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Area Average Size of Independent Variable 69 % Enter 44%Range of Rates (low)2.03 % Exit 56%Range of Rates (high)5.16 Passby Rate 0%Standard Deviation 1.83 Total TG Prim. Enter Prim. Exit Pass. Enter Pass. Exit 110%AvgRt 2.98 Average Trip Rate 2.71 49 22 28 0 0 r2 0.98 65 29 37 0 0 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Name 0 Number of Studies 60 Size 2 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Area Average Size of Independent Variable 6 % Enter 60%Range of Rates (low)0.92 % Exit 40%Range of Rates (high)62.00 Passby Rate 43%Standard Deviation 8.54 Total TG Prim. Enter Prim. Exit Pass. Enter Pass. Exit 110%AvgRt 10.84 Average Trip Rate 9.85 20 7 4 5 3 r2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ITE Code 220 ITE Code 932 PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic ITE Code 311 ITE Code 826 APPENDIX C. SYNCHRO REPORTS HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace 5:00 pm 11/2/2016 2017 PM No Build Synchro 9 Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 132 4 6 193 62 7 0 5 38 0 57 Future Vol, veh/h 42 132 4 6 193 62 7 0 5 38 0 57 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 42 132 4 6 193 62 7 0 5 38 0 57 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 255 0 0 136 0 0 483 485 134 457 456 224 Stage 1 - - - - - - 218 218 - 236 236 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 265 267 - 221 220 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1322 - - 1461 - - 497 485 920 517 504 820 Stage 1 - - - - - - 789 726 - 772 713 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 745 692 - 786 725 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1322 - - 1461 - - 449 466 920 499 484 820 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 449 466 - 499 484 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 762 701 - 746 709 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 690 689 - 755 700 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.2 11.4 11.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 571 1322 - - 1461 - - 652 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.032 - - 0.004 - - 0.146 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 7.8 0 - 7.5 0 - 11.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace 5:00 pm 11/2/2016 2017 PM Build Synchro 9 Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 132 14 26 193 62 18 0 14 38 0 57 Future Vol, veh/h 42 132 14 26 193 62 18 0 14 38 0 57 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 42 132 14 26 193 62 18 0 14 38 0 57 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 255 0 0 146 0 0 528 530 139 506 506 224 Stage 1 - - - - - - 223 223 - 276 276 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 305 307 - 230 230 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1322 - - 1448 - - 464 457 915 480 472 820 Stage 1 - - - - - - 784 723 - 735 685 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 709 665 - 777 718 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1322 - - 1448 - - 414 432 915 453 446 820 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 414 432 - 453 446 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 757 698 - 709 671 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 646 651 - 738 693 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0.7 12 11.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 544 1322 - - 1448 - - 619 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 0.032 - - 0.018 - - 0.153 HCM Control Delay (s) 12 7.8 0 - 7.5 0 - 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace 5:00 pm 11/2/2016 2022 PM No Build Synchro 9 Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 138 4 6 203 66 7 0 5 40 0 59 Future Vol, veh/h 44 138 4 6 203 66 7 0 5 40 0 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 44 138 4 6 203 66 7 0 5 40 0 59 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 269 0 0 142 0 0 506 509 140 479 478 236 Stage 1 - - - - - - 228 228 - 248 248 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 278 281 - 231 230 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1306 - - 1453 - - 480 470 913 500 489 808 Stage 1 - - - - - - 779 719 - 760 705 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 733 682 - 776 718 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1306 - - 1453 - - 431 450 913 481 469 808 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 431 450 - 481 469 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 750 692 - 732 701 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 676 679 - 743 691 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0.2 11.7 11.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 553 1306 - - 1453 - - 634 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.034 - - 0.004 - - 0.156 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.7 7.9 0 - 7.5 0 - 11.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace 5:00 pm 11/2/2016 2022 PM Build Synchro 9 Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 138 14 26 203 66 18 0 14 40 0 59 Future Vol, veh/h 44 138 14 26 203 66 18 0 14 40 0 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 44 138 14 26 203 66 18 0 14 40 0 59 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 269 0 0 152 0 0 551 554 145 528 528 236 Stage 1 - - - - - - 233 233 - 288 288 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 318 321 - 240 240 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1306 - - 1441 - - 448 443 908 464 459 808 Stage 1 - - - - - - 775 716 - 724 677 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 698 655 - 768 711 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1306 - - 1441 - - 397 418 908 437 433 808 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 397 418 - 437 433 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 746 690 - 697 663 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 633 641 - 728 685 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.7 12.3 12.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 527 1306 - - 1441 - - 602 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.034 - - 0.018 - - 0.164 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 7.9 0 - 7.5 0 - 12.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.6 APPENDIX D. SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 PM No Build 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace SimTraffic Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection: 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 24 59 Average Queue (ft) 6 8 40 95th Queue (ft) 26 30 62 Link Distance (ft) 542 196 205 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 PM Build 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace SimTraffic Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection: 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 24 12 31 59 Average Queue (ft) 7 2 12 39 95th Queue (ft) 29 16 36 60 Link Distance (ft) 542 259 196 205 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2022 PM No Build 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace SimTraffic Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection: 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 18 55 Average Queue (ft) 8 7 38 95th Queue (ft) 31 28 60 Link Distance (ft) 542 196 205 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2022 PM Build 11/2/2016 Larkin Terrace SimTraffic Report r.meuse Page 1 Intersection: 2: Site Drive/Plaza Drive & Fayette Rd Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 12 31 59 Average Queue (ft) 8 2 14 41 95th Queue (ft) 31 16 39 63 Link Distance (ft) 542 259 196 205 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 APPENDIX E. SAFETY DATA Date Time AOT Actual Mile Point Street Address Report Number Reporting Agency Light Crash Type City or Town Road Characteristics Dir. of Collision1/31/2010 11:22:00 AM 1.13 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Rd.) 10SB00717 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End2/3/2010 12:19:00 PM 1.18 US-7 10SB00785 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Other - Explain in Narrative Rear End3/5/2010 2:29:00 PM 1.15 US-7 (1185 Shelburne Rd.) 10SB01515 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Same Direction Sideswipe5/13/2010 5:41:00 PM 1.13 US-7 (Shelburne Rd) 10-3501 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End6/17/2010 10:00:00 AM 1.13 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Rd) 10SB04536 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End6/17/2010 1:47:00 PM 1.12 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Rd) 10SB04541 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Parking Lot Rear-to-rear7/8/2010 6:57:00 AM 1.11 US-7 (Shelburne Rd) 10SB05199 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Same Direction Sideswipe7/15/2010 2:42:00 PM 1.1 US-7 (1200 Shelburne Rd) 10SB05457 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Head On7/18/2010 11:17:00 AM 1.08 US-7 (1200 Shelburne Rd) 10SB05551 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Head On9/1/2010 2:59:00 PM 1.13 US-7 (Shelburne Rd) 10SB07119 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Opp Direction Sideswipe12/27/2010 6:06:00 PM 1.13 Shelburne Road 10SB10557 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Lighted Roadway Fatal South Burlington Four-way Intersection Single Vehicle Crash7/13/2011 4:56:00 PM 1.1 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Rd) 11SB05454 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End10/15/2011 4:16:00 PM 1.15 US-7 (1120 Shelburne Road) 11SB08315 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End11/10/2011 5:47:00 PM 1.13 US-7 (1120 Shelburne Road) 11SB09061 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Lighted Roadway Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End12/4/2011 12:58:00 PM 1.1 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Road) 11SB09710 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Shared-use path or trail Rear End3/2/2012 2:55:00 PM 1.14 US-7 (Shelburne Rd) 12SB01670 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End4/6/2012 2:07:00 PM 1.18 US-7 (1116 Shelburne Road) 2012SB2601 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End4/7/2012 8:19:00 PM 1.13 US-7 Shelburne Rd 12SB02632 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Lighted Roadway Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Same Direction Sideswipe6/8/2012 2:25:00 PM 1.13 RT 7 12SB06963 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Shared-use path or trail Rear End6/15/2012 10:54:00 AM 1.13 US-7 Shelburne Road 12SB07287 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Shared-use path or trail Rear End9/10/2012 9:30:00 AM 1.16 US-7 (1125 Shelburne Road) 12SB011966 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Same Direction Sideswipe9/11/2012 9:21:00 AM 1.18 US-7 (Front Of 1116 Shelburne Road) 12SB012036 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Driveway Right Turn and Thru, Broadside ^<--9/14/2012 7:46:00 AM 1.13 US-7 Shelburne Road 12SB012188 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Injury South Burlington Four-way Intersection Left Turn and Thru, Angle Broadside -->v--9/24/2012 3:05:00 PM 1.11 US-7 (1185 Shelburne Road) 12SB012744 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Parking Lot Same Direction Sideswipe12/15/2012 6:02:00 PM 1.16 US-7 (1125 Shelburne Road) 12SB016885 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Roadway Not Lighted Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End3/21/2013 4:53:00 PM 1.14 US-7 Shelburne Road 13SB004058 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End6/10/2013 9:16:00 AM 1.16 US-7 (1125 Shelburne Rd) 13SB008315 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Left Turn and Thru, Angle Broadside -->v--7/2/2013 2:07:00 AM 1.16 US-7 (1125 Shelburne Rd) 13SB009459 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Lighted Roadway Property Damage Only South Burlington Parking Lot Other - Explain in Narrative8/3/2013 12:00:00 AM 1.12 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Road) 13SB011302 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Unknown Crash Type South Burlington Parking Lot Rear End8/6/2013 5:40:00 PM 1.09 US-7 (1200 Shelburne Rd) 13SB011441 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End8/8/2013 5:03:00 PM 1.11 US-7 (1185 Shelburne Road) 13SB011540 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Same Direction Sideswipe9/25/2013 12:40:00 PM 1.14 US-7 Shelburne Rd 13SB013958 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End11/4/2013 9:55:00 AM 1.16 US-7 Shelburne Rd 13SB015896 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End11/5/2013 12:40:00 PM 1.18 US-7 (1125 Shelburne Rd) 13SB015950 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End11/5/2013 1:09:00 PM 1.15 US-7 Shelburne Rd 13SB015952 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End12/31/2013 5:50:00 PM 1.13 US-7 Shelburne Road 13SB018446 So. Burlington PD. Dark - Lighted Roadway Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Left Turn and Thru, Angle Broadside -->v--4/10/2014 2:50:00 PM 1.18 US-7 Shelburne Rd 14SB003938 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End6/3/2014 12:31:00 PM 1.16 1125 Shelburne Rd 14SB006157 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Left Turn and Thru, Broadside v<--6/17/2014 4:30:00 PM 1.13 US-7 Shelburne Rd 14SB006756 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Rear End6/23/2014 8:43:00 AM 1.13 Shelburne Rd 14SB006957 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Not at a Junction Same Direction Sideswipe7/7/2014 6:01:00 PM 1.13 Shelburne Road 14SB007678 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington N/A8/13/2014 11:04:00 AM 1.16 1125 Shelburne Rd 14SB009312 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End8/28/2014 5:11:00 PM 1.16 1120 Shelburne Road 14SB009939 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington N/A10/2/2014 12:14:00 PM 1.13 Shelburne Road 14SB011320 So. Burlington PD. Daylight Property Damage Only South Burlington Four-way Intersection Rear End12/10/2014 4:55:00 PM 1.18 US-7 Shelburne Rd 14SB013970 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington N/A12/23/2014 4:08:00 PM 1.12 US-7 (1184 Shelburne Rd) 14SB014523 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington N/A12/31/2014 3:23:00 PM 1.16 1125 Shelburne Rd 2014SB014814 So. Burlington PD. N/A Property Damage Only South Burlington N/A October 28, 2016 South Burlington Development Review Board C/o Mr. Ray Belair South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Preliminary Plat Application- Larkin Terrace John Larkin Inc, The Milot Larkin Partnership, and Eric Farrell representing the David M. Farrell Trust, applicant and co-applicants. Members of the Board, In support of the attached application for preliminary plat, we are submitting the following narrative. The applicant(s) have proposed an extensive re-development of lands at 1185 and 1195 Shelburne Road in the C-1 Auto District. You have reviewed several sketch plans of the master plan for this redevelopment. The application now before you is for the first phase only and generally applies to the land at 1185 Shelburne Road, generally known as Larkin Terrace. It entails demolition of 60 dwelling units currently approved as an extended stay hotel, and replacement with a new four-story plus basement mixed use retail and residential building. The new structure will have a footprint of 21,178 square feet and will feature 54 apartments and 20,250 square feet of commercial / retail space on the ground floor. Parking will be provided in a basement level parking garage and on a surface lot located behind the new building. We seek approval as a Planned Unit Development. The subject property is part of the previously approved L&M Park Planned Unit Development and so this application is an amendment to that underlying plat. This application will incorporate additional land at 1195 Shelburne Road, currently subject of a purchase and sales agreement from the David M. Farrell Trust. Impacts on those additional lands are limited under this application to shared storm water improvements, utility crossings and a limited amount of parking. In order to promote innovative design, and to encourage and more active streetscape, the applicant(s) are requesting the Development Review Board to allow for waivers as allowed by the South Burlington LDRs. The waivers required under this application are: 1. Waiver of front yard setbacks to provide a more pedestrian oriented experience. 2. Waiver of Front Yard Coverage limits to allow for walks, seating areas, etc 3. Waiver of building height limitations to allow for 45 feet to the top of a flat roof and up to 55 feet for a decorative element. 4. Reduction in the minimum parking requirement based on the sharing of parking between uses, ready access to a major bus line, and the predominance of one-bedroom units being proposed. Density: The base residential density for the subject property is 12 dwelling units per acre. The attached plan entitled “DP-1 - Density Calculation Site Plan” prepared by Krebs and Lansing Inc. and dated October 28, 2016 shows where in the PUD the density for this phase is drawn from. The density for this phase is drawn from the 2.5 acres at 1185 Shelburne Road (former Larkin Terrace) and a two acre portion of the lands of Farrell at 1195 Shelburne Road. Storm water: The current proposal incorporates new storm water improvements that anticipate a full build-out of the master planned project. Run off from roofs and parking areas will be collected in various structures and ultimately routed to a new storm water facility meeting contemporary standards to be located adjacent to an existing pond on the Farrell parcel. This system will provide more and better treatment than the system currently serving the Larkin Terrace Parcel. A more complete description of this system is attached. Traffic: The subject property is part of a Traffic Overlay District. The Vermont Department of Transportation conducted a corridor traffic count in the summer of 2016 and so available background data is current. Proposed uses and estimated vehicle trip ends are shown in this table: The site will generate 104 trips. 28 of those trips will be captured internally, so 76 trips are projected at the project driveway. We can remove up to 6% for TDM measures, which you accomplish with a bus stop with shelter, transit/walk access site design, and bicycle racks. We also remove the 22 trips from the existing land use (apartment-style hotel), so there is a net 50 trips being added at the project driveway. This parcel is in Traffic Overlay Zone 2C (Access to a high-volume roadway via a public roadway or a private driveway with a roundabout or a signalized intersection) and has a budget of 0.75 trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf). At 110 ksf, it can have a maximum of 83 trips accessing the US-7/Fayette Drive intersection. Note that this trip budget relates to the total number of trips generated by the site that access the high-volume roadway; you do not get credit for existing trips. Based on background traffic at the site driveway, we estimate that 52% of primary trips (34) and all pass-by trips (6) will use the Fayette Drive/US-7 intersection, for a total of 40 trips accessing US-7. This is well below the 83 trip max. Natural and Historic Areas: There are no significant natural areas or historic features on the current 2.5 acre site, which is fully developed. Within the overall PUD there are mapped wetlands and a conservation buffer which protects an un-named tributary of Bartlett’s Brook. The project as proposed will include the construction of new storm water treatment features that will improve water quality in Bartletts Brook and the greater Lake Champlain water shed by upgrading the storm water system to current standards. Fire Protection: We have met with the South Burlington Fire Department. We understand that the new hydrant being provided in this phase must be within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection at the face of the building. We further agreed with the department’s request that we ease the curb radii at Fayette Road and at the parking lot entrances to facilitate truck access. Our analysis shows the required change to be minimal and the plans will incorporate the changes for final plat. We have recent Fire Flow Field Reports that indicate the water system has sufficient flows and pressures for fire suppression. Please refer to the attached report for details. Parking: Parking is determined by use per Table 13.1 of the City of South Burlington LDRs. The baseline requirement is: One bedroom Apartments 33 1 space per apt. 33 One Bedroom plus den Apartments 6 1 space per apt. 6 Two Bedroom Apartments 15 2 spaces per apt. 30 Small Restaurant 2000 sf. 12 spaces per 1000 24 General Retail: 18,250 sf. 5 spaces per 1000 91.25 Total of base requirement from LDRs 184 spaces Note that because the project includes more than 10 dwelling units, the requirement for additional guest parking is waived per footnote 1 of Table 13-1. Parking Provided: Existing Parking: Proposed parking: Lower Level Parking Lot 83 parking spaces 83 parking spaces Upper Level Parking Lot (s) 43 parking Spaces 72 parking Spaces Garage Parking ---- 53 parking spaces Parking provided on this lot: 126 parking Spaces 208 parking spaces Shared parking: The subject property is part of a previously approved shared parking regime. The last analysis of this shared parking was prepared by Lamoreaux and Dickenson in December of 2013. Of the 620 parking spaces constructed in the PUD, a maximum share of 120 spaces was allocated to the 2.5 acres at 1185 Shelburne Road. The prior analysis counted 61 apartments at the rate of 2 spaces per apartment. Summer Weekday Winter Weekend PM Peak (Hourly) Evening Peak 54 apartments – 69 Spaces (85%) 45.9 spaces (98%) 52.92 spaces Restaurant – 24 spaces (75%) 18 spaces (100%) 24 spaces Retail 91.25 spaces (90%) 81.25 spaces (70%) 63.87 spaces Total Demand 145.15 spaces 140.79 spaces Base Parking requirement: 184 parking spaces Allowable waiver (25%) (44) parking spaces Adjusted Parking Requirement: 140 parking spaces Actual spaces provided 208 parking spaces Previous shared parking allocation 120 spaces New parking provided 88 spaces Under the current proposal, parking demand will increase over the as-built condition from the 120 spaces allocated to as many as 145 spaces. The project as designed adds 88 parking spaces over the current condition. These newly constructed spaces have not been allocated to any prior phase and so are available to meet the needs of the current phase, with 63 additional spaces available for future phases Set Backs and Coverage: We have previously discussed the goal of creating a more pedestrian oriented, urban style of streetscape. This necessarily impacts the front yard set-back and coverage limits set by the LDRs. In order to allow for the walk ways, seating areas, bus stop, etc. we are requesting a waiver of the front yard set-back from 30 feet to 12 feet, and a waiver of the front yard coverage requirement from a maximum of 30% to 100%. Building Height: The maximum building height from appendix C of the LDRs for a flat roof building is 35 feet. The current building site is very flat with an average pre-construction grade of 202.16 feet. We have proposed a four story building, with several significant cut outs having two or three story roofs. We are asking for an average roof elevation of 44 feet above pre-construction grade. In addition, in order to animate the roof-scape, we would like to have one significant feature extend to 59 feet as a design statement, similar to a steeple. Conclusion: This has been a collaborative effort involving our design team, the City Planning and Zoning staff and you, the board members who have been reviewing this at the sketch level. It is our goal to create an innovative, pedestrian oriented, mixed use and density environment. The intersection of Fayette Road and Shelburne Road is a major node on the Shelburne Road corridor, and a suitable site for this level of density. We understand that the project requires some waivers of the standards, but in service of a more creative and appealing environment. We appreciate your consideration, and look forward to discussing these issues in full at our upcoming hearing. Sincerely, Gregory Rabideau AIA Rabideau Architects LOCUSKL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-109/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 100' OVERALL EXISTINGSITEandP.U.D. PLAN10/13/161 Revise notesZone line from City of South Burlington Official mappingCommercial 1-Residential 15Commercial 1-AutomobileCommercial 1-Residential 15Commercial 1-AutomobileParcel L&MN/F Olde Orchard Realty Partnership, LPParcel DN/F Larkin2.54 acresParcel EN/F L&M PartnershipROWExisting City of South Burlington utility easement60' wide right-of-way subject to irrevocable offer of dedicationFOR PERMIT REVIEW1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. Farrell Trust(west)N/F LowesN/F FarrellN/F Farrell Distributing CorporationN/F 1220ShelburneRoad Corp.N/F Sisters andBrothers InvestmentGroup, LLCN/F WilsonN/FGrandviewFarms, Inc.N/F NorthfieldSavings BankN/F SpillaneN/F JolleyAssociates, LLCN/F KAPSHAProperties, Inc.N/F SouthlandEnterprises, Inc.N/F CRE JV MixedFifteen NE BranchHoldingsParcel CN/F Larkin MilotPartnershipN/F7 Fayette, LLCPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSN/F 1233 Shelburne Road AssociationParcel BN/F OldeOrchard RealtyPartnership, LP11/03/162 SB PP Resubmit, revise parcel B note1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. Farrell Trust(east) Planning and Zoning InformationArea: 40.7 acres (includes Farrell parcel)Zoned: Commercial 1 - Residential 15Commercial 1 - AutomobileLot Coverage: Existing ProposedL&M P.U.D. Total Area: 1,774,779 s.f. (includes L&M, all Farrell and Fayette ROW)Buildings 130,258 sf 7.3% 136,864 sf 7.7%Total lot coverage 377,983 sf 21.3% 413,626 sf 23.3%Parcel "D" Total Area: 110,642 s.f.Buildings 17,352 sf 15.7% 23,958 sf 21.7%Total lot coverage 64,145 sf 57.9% 95,491 sf 86.3%Farrell East Total Area: 112,751 s.f.Buildings 0 sf 0% 0 sf 0%Total lot coverage 6,806 sf 6.0% 13,068 sf 11.6%Farrell West Total Area: 117,816 s.f.Buildings 0 sf 0% 0 sf 0%Total lot coverage 14,052 sf 8.0% 14,052 sf 8.0%Front yard (Shelburne Road Only):L&M P.U.D. Total Area: 26,849 s.f. 2,664 s.f. 9.9% 8,572 s.f. 31.9%Lot D Total Area: 7,422 s.f. 1,050 s.f. 14.2% 7,406 s.f. 99.8%Farrell East Total Area: 7,778 s.f. 530 s.f. 6.8% 1,150 14.8%Stormwater discharge pipingin 20' wide utility easementStormwater treatment basin easementKL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-29/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 50'CIVILSITE PLAN10/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radiusExisting culvertNew rip-rap drainage channelShading represents water surfaceNew Outlet Control Structure #1.Rim 163.00Inv. in 155.3 (12")Inv. in 157.2 (12")Inv. out 154.0 (18")See DetailNew Trash Rack.See DetailNew Emergency Spillway.See DetailExisting paved roadwayExisting pondExisting RR TracksFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREAShelburne RoadFayette RoadMcDonaldsOlde Orchard Park CondominiumsCinema 9Inn RoadFarrell PropertyFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststorm, add P&Z notesFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-39/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 20'CIVILSITE PLANConnect new water mainRemove existing CBFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSBike RackSlope down togarage belowBike RackPROPOSED BUILDINGGarage Floor Elev. 191.00First Floor Elev. 202.00Face offoundationbelowSnow StorageSnow Storage10/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radius11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststormSEE SP-2 FOR NOTES AND LEGEND KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-49/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 10'CIVILSITE PLANNWFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSRemove and dispose of existing CB and pipingCut and cap existing storm pipeRetaining wall by othersRoof Drain Inv @ wall 195.54Sewer Inv @ wall 193.7310/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radius11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststorm KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-59/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 10'CIVILSITE PLANSWFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSRoof Drain Inv @ wall 195.58Sewer Inv @ wall 193.74Roof Drain Inv@ wall 195.9110/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radius11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststormSnow StorageSnow Storage KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-69/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 10'CIVILSITE PLANNEFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS10/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radius11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststormBus Stop KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-79/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 10'CIVILSITE PLANSEFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS10/13/161 Storm pond, island, curb radius11/03/162SB PP Resubmit, revise parking, add & adjuststorm KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSP-810/13/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 50'CIVILEROSIONPREVENTION& SEDIMENTCONTROLPLANExisting culvertNew rip-rap drainage channelShading represents water surfaceNew Outlet Control Structure #1.Rim 163.00Inv. in 155.5 (12")Inv. out 155.0 (18")See DetailNew Trash Rack.See DetailNew Emergency Spillway.See DetailExisting paved roadwayExisting pondExisting RR TracksStormwater discharge piping alignmentFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREAShelburne RoadFayette RoadMcDonaldsOlde Orchard Park CondominiumsCinema 9Inn RoadFarrell PropertyFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSErosion Prevention and Sediment Control Notes1. This plan is for erosion prevention and sediment control design only. See Site Plans for all other site related design.2. Contractor shall be responsible for complying with all State and Local erosion prevention and sediment control standards and permit requirementsduring construction.3. The limit of disturbance shall be clearly defined by Contractor's surveyor prior to clearing. Erosion and sediment control devices shall be establishedto trap sediment on site.4. Clearing and grubbing shall not begin until disturbance limits and sediment controls are in place. All roots, stumps and deleterious materials shallbe removed from the site. The Contractor shall minimize the amount of disturbed land at any given time.5. All erosion control shall be placed as shown on the drawings or as ordered by the Engineer. The Contractor shall maintain the erosion controlmeasures until the Engineer is satisfied that permanent ground cover is established and that further measures are not required. It shall be theresponsibility of the Contractor to employ appropriate erosion control as shown on these drawings and any other measures as necessary to trapsediment on site. Refer to permit maintenance and inspection requirements.6. All areas of disturbance shall be permanently or temporarily stabilized as soon as possible and within 48 hours of final grading. All areas ofdisturbance shall be at least temporarily stabilized within 14 days of initial disturbance. Any disturbance after 14 consecutive days of exposed soilshall be stabilized daily unless the following exceptions apply:a. Stabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the area in the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast in the next 24hours.b. Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 ft. or greater (e.g. housefoundation excavation, utility trenches). Stabilization measures shall include mulch and netting, erosion control matting, crushed stone,gravel, or pavement.6. Unless specifically indicated on the plans acceptable methods of stabilization shall include: - Straw Mulching - 2 tons per acre. Approximately 1" uniform thickness. Only allowed on relatively flat areas with minimum upslope watershed.Mulch must be properly anchored to prevent material from being blown away by wind (windthrow).- Hydroseeding* - Applied at the manufacturer's recommended application rate. Contractor shall provide evidence of proper application rate.Hydroseeding is not allowed in areas of concentrated flow.- Erosion control matting - S75BN rolled matting must be applied to all slopes 3:1 (H:V) or greater (unless otherwise indicated).- Crushed stone or crushed gravel - Typically used for temporary access roads and construction staging areas.7. The Contractor shall use water for dust control.8. The Contractor shall provide inlet protection around all catch basins (existing or new) that collect construction site stormwater runoff.9. At a minimum dewatering shall be accomplished by creating a sump pit filled with crushed stone and pumping to a sediment filter bag placeddownslope of any disturbed soils. The pumpout water shall be monitored to ensure visibly discolored water does leave the project site.10. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing a dewatering/stormwater bypass plan for approval by the Engineer. The objective of the plan is toprovide a strategy that, when implemented, the pumped water is not visibly discolored when it leaves the project site.11. A stabilized construction entrance shall be installed and maintained at ALL construction access locations. Contractor shall be responsible forinstalling crushed stone to provide stable areas for construction vehicle traffic, staging, and storage. The Contractor is responsible for providing andmaintaining sufficient stone to prevent rutting and sediment tracking offsite.12. Any paved roads used by construction vehicles shall be swept daily, or at a greater frequency, if dirt or gravel is tracked from the site. The sweptdebris shall be immediately removed from face of curb if applicable.13. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final stabilization or after the measures are no longerneeded, unless otherwise authorized.14. All sediment removed from sediment control practices shall be placed in an approved soil disposal area.15. All areas that do not have established vegetation by October 15th must be stabilized in accordance with the Winter Stabilization requirementsoutlined in the Low Risk Site Handbook. See Details.16. After permanent seeding the Contractor shall be responsible for watering to ensure adequate vegetative growth.17. The location of temporary construction fencing and temporary access roads shown on the plan are for schematic purposes only. The Contractorshall be responsible for providing all necessary temporary construction fencing, temporary roads, staging areas, etc., necessary to complete thework.18. The Contractor shall be responsible for all inspection and maintenance of the erosion prevention and sediment control practices for the project.Inspections and corresponding reports shall be performed at a minimum, once a week and after every precipitation event that results in a dischargefrom the site.11/03/162 SB PP Resubmit, revise parcel B note KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseEX-109/29/16SLMPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGSLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 20'EXISTINGCONDITIONSPLANXXXXX1 XXXXXFOR PERMIT REVIEWSee Legend Sht. SP-2 KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-109/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300As noted CIVIL DETAILSXXXXX1 XXXXXFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS 3" clear (min.)2" clear (min.)KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-209/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300XXXXX1 XXXXX CIVIL DETAILSAs notedFOR PERMIT REVIEW3" clear (min.)2" clear (min.)PRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-309/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300XXXXX1 XXXXX CIVIL DETAILSAs notedFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-409/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300XXXXX1 XXXXX CIVIL DETAILSAs notedFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-509/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300XXXXX1 XXXXX CIVIL DETAILSAs notedFOR PERMIT REVIEWAABBPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control NotesKL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-609/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300XXXXX1 XXXXXWinter Construction Requirements (October 15th - April 15th) CIVIL DETAILSAs notedFOR PERMIT REVIEWPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR PERMIT REVIEWKL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseCD-709/29/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300As Noted CIVIL DETAILSXXXXX1 XXXXXPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS UPUP12IIAACCBBH8NOK67910111212131414J26' - 0"79' - 8"9' - 10 1/4"26' - 9 3/4"53' - 4"20' - 8"216' - 4"5' - 0"15' - 4"20' - 0"27' - 8"5' - 0"73' - 0"3' - 4"26' - 0"79' - 8"36' - 8"142' - 4"25' - 11 3/4"100' - 8"126' - 7 3/4"1' - 0"20' - 4"20' - 0"32' - 8"1' - 0"75' - 0"3' - 4"131' - 8"42' - 4"20' - 8"194' - 8"PARKINGGARAGEELEVATORLOBBYELEVATOREQUIPMENT53 PARKING SPACESUPDOWN1212121212121212RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϭϬϭ'Z'&>KKZW>E>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϯϬϭϭ'Z'&>KKZW>E 123IIAACCBBH458LMNOK671212131414J7 1/4"4 3/4"7 1/4"32' - 2"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"19' - 10"7 1/4"4 3/4"7 1/4"1' - 0"32' - 9 1/4"18' - 8"20' - 5 1/4"1' - 0"73' - 10 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"25' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"103' - 4"7 1/4"41' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"20' - 0 3/4"7 1/4"3' - 4"26' - 0"104' - 6 1/2"42' - 4"20' - 8"196' - 10 1/2"7 1/4"4' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"14' - 10"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"27' - 2"7 1/4"4' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"71' - 10 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"25' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"103' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"2' - 10"3' - 4"26' - 0"104' - 4"3' - 5 1/4"133' - 8"20' - 5 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"25' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"77' - 4"7 1/4"10' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"2' - 0 3/4"7 1/4"21' - 5 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 0 3/4"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"11' - 0"2' - 8"21' - 5 1/2"2' - 8"145' - 8"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"7 1/4"25' - 4 3/4"7 1/4"77' - 4"7 1/4"10' - 7 1/2"7 1/4"26' - 6 3/4"7 1/4"51' - 0"7 1/4"20' - 0 3/4"7 1/4"4 3/4"7 1/4"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"27' - 2"52' - 2 1/2"20' - 8"1' - 0"219' - 6 1/2"79' - 2"UPDOWN3158 SFLEASESPACE1654 SFLEASESPACEAPARTMENTLOBBY1673 SFLEASESPACE13108 SFGROCERYSPACE131310101011111313333131313331312RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϭϬϮ&/Z^d&>KKZW>E>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ&/Z^d&>KKZW>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞ 123GIIAACCBBEDH4581' - 0"32' - 9 1/4" 18' - 8" 20' - 5 1/4"1' - 0"133' - 8"LMNOK67910111212131414JF5' - 0"5 1/2"6 1/2"5 1/2"19' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"6 1/2"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"73' - 10 1/2"1' - 0"33' - 2 3/4"5' - 5"12' - 6 3/4"20' - 8"1' - 0"5' - 0"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 10 1/2"5 1/2"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"3' - 5 1/4"20' - 8"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"29' - 2 1/4"7 1/4"2' - 6 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 4"26' - 0"104' - 4"3' - 5 1/4"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"77' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"21' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 2 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"11' - 0"2' - 8"21' - 5 1/2"2' - 8"145' - 8"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"77' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"7 1/4"26' - 6 3/4"5 1/2"51' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"20' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"6 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"27' - 2"52' - 2 1/2"20' - 8"1' - 0"1' - 0"20' - 8"26' - 1"26' - 1 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"219' - 6 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 0"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 5 1/4"1' - 5"7 1/4"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"42' - 6 1/2"20' - 8"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"41' - 10 1/2"5 1/2"20' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"196' - 10 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"14' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"27' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"71' - 10 1/2"ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 201ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 203ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 205ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 207ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 209ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 202ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 204ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 206ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 208ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 210ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 211ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 212TWO BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 214ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 216ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 218ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 220ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 221ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 219ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 217ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 215ELEVATORLOBBYOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOW131333322222222222221122222222333131313131313131010101313131313131313111111111112211111111RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϭϬϯ^KE&>KKZW>E>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ^KE&>KKZW>E 123GIIAACCBBEDH4583' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"42' - 6 1/2"20' - 8"LMNOK5' - 0"5 1/2"6 1/2"5 1/2"19' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"6 1/2"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"73' - 10 1/2"1' - 0"32' - 9 1/4"18' - 8"20' - 5 1/4"1' - 0"67910111212131414ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 301ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 303ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 305ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 307ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 309ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 302ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 304ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 306ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 308ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 310ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 311ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 312TWO BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 314ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 316ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 318ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 320ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 321ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 319ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 317ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 315SITTINGAREAMECHANICAL/ UTILITYFITNESSELEVATORLOBBYJF5' - 0"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"62' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"196' - 10 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 10 1/2"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"5 1/2"23' - 7 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"29' - 2 1/4"7 1/4"2' - 6 1/4"5 1/2"130' - 4"3' - 4"26' - 0"104' - 4"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"77' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"11' - 0"26' - 9 1/2"145' - 8"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"77' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"7 1/4"26' - 6 3/4"5 1/2"51' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"21' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 4"26' - 0"78' - 6 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"27' - 2"52' - 2 1/2"21' - 8"1' - 0"20' - 8"26' - 1"26' - 1 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"219' - 6 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 0"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 2 1/2"1' - 5"7 1/4"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"14' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"27' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"71' - 10 1/2"ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 313ROOF TERRACE1' - 0"20' - 8"12' - 6 3/4"5' - 5"12' - 6 3/4"20' - 8"1' - 0"131333322222222221122222222333131313131313131010101313131313131111111113112111111112212RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϭϬϰd,/Z&>KKZW>E>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭd,/Z&>KKZW>E 123GIIAACCBBEDH458LMNOK67910111212131414JF3' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"42' - 6 1/2"20' - 8"5' - 0"5 1/2"6' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"14' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"26' - 7 3/4"5 1/2"6' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"33' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"33' - 3 3/4"73' - 10 1/2"6' - 8"27' - 1 1/4"18' - 8"14' - 9 1/4"6' - 8"5' - 0"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"39' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"23' - 0"196' - 10 1/2"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"103' - 10 1/2"26' - 4"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"5 1/2"23' - 7 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"29' - 2 1/4"7 1/4"2' - 11 3/4"133' - 8"3' - 4"26' - 0"104' - 4"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"2' - 1"5 1/2"10' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"3' - 4"26' - 0"2' - 8"18' - 8"8' - 8"18' - 8"8' - 8"18' - 8"2' - 6 1/2"11' - 0"26' - 9 1/2"145' - 8"7 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"5 1/2"25' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"2' - 1"5 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"7 1/4"26' - 4 1/2"7 1/4"51' - 4"5 1/2"21' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 4"26' - 0"2' - 8"18' - 8"8' - 8"18' - 8"8' - 8"18' - 8"2' - 6 1/2"10' - 7 1/2"27' - 7"51' - 9 1/2"21' - 8"1' - 0"20' - 8"26' - 1"26' - 1 1/2"26' - 9 1/2"11' - 2 1/2"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 4"219' - 6 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"5' - 5"5 1/2"32' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 2 1/2"1' - 5"7 1/4"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"14' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"17' - 9"5 1/2"27' - 3 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"71' - 10 1/2"1' - 0"20' - 8"12' - 6 3/4"5' - 5"12' - 6 3/4"20' - 8"1' - 0"ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 401ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 403ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 405ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 407ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 409ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 402ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 404ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 406ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 408ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 410TWO BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 412ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 414ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 416ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 418ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 419ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 417ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 415ONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 413MECHANICAL/ UTILITYCOMMUNITYROOMELEVATORLOBBYONE BEDROOMTYPE '?'# 411ROOF TERRACE13133332222222221122222222333131313131313101010131313131111111111313111112212RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϭϬϱ&KhZd,&>KKZW>E>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϯͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ&KhZd,&>KKZW>E FIRST FLOOR202' - 0"SECOND FLOOR216' - 0"THIRD FLOOR226' - 0"FOURTH FLOOR236' - 0"TOP OF ROOF DECK246' - 0"1234586791011121314TOP OF UPPER ROOF DECK249' - 0"FIRST FLOOR202' - 0"SECOND FLOOR216' - 0"THIRD FLOOR226' - 0"FOURTH FLOOR236' - 0"TOP OF ROOF DECK246' - 0"1234586791011121314TOP OF UPPER ROOF DECK249' - 0"RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϮϬϭ>sd/KE^>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭEKZd,>sd/KEϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮ^Khd,>sd/KEZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞ FIRST FLOOR202' - 0"SECOND FLOOR216' - 0"THIRD FLOOR226' - 0"FOURTH FLOOR236' - 0"TOP OF ROOF DECK246' - 0"GIACBEDHLMNOKJFTOP OF UPPER ROOF DECK249' - 0"FIRST FLOOR202' - 0"SECOND FLOOR216' - 0"THIRD FLOOR226' - 0"FOURTH FLOOR236' - 0"TOP OF ROOF DECK246' - 0"GIACBEDHLMNOKJFTOP OF UPPER ROOF DECK249' - 0"RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϮϬϮ>sd/KE^>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ^d>sd/KEϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮt^d>sd/KEZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞ FIRST FLOOR202' - 0"SECOND FLOOR216' - 0"GARAGE FLOOR192' - 0"THIRD FLOOR226' - 0"FOURTH FLOOR236' - 0"TOP OF ROOF DECK246' - 0"GIACBEDTOP OF UPPER ROOF DECK249' - 0"1313222222131313132A7102A7112A7111A7111A7111A7111A711RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗ(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϯϬϭh/>/E'^d/KE>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭdzW/>h/>/E'^d/KE RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗(?5HYLW%DFNXSV?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB$OUYWϵϬϭϯs/t^>Z</EdZZ^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdϭϱϬϰϬϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϲZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭϯsŝĞǁϭϮϯsŝĞǁϮϯϯsŝĞǁϯϰϯsŝĞǁϰϱϯsŝĞǁϱϲϯsŝĞǁϲ RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com1257+Zs/d/KE^Zt/E'/EyZ,/ddhZ>^zDK>^ADDADDITIONALA/CAIR CONDITION(ING)ATACOUSTIC TILEADJADJUSTABLEAFFABOVE FINISH FLOORALUMALUMINUMAPROXAPPROXIMATEARCHARCHITECTURALBDBOARDBLDGBUILDINGBLKGBLOCKINGBSMTBASEMENTCABCABINETCERCERAMICCJCONTROL JOINTCLCLEAR, CLEARANCECLGCEILINGC.H.CEILING HEIGHTCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCOLCOLUMNCONCCONCRETECONSTCONSTRUCTIONCONTCONTINUOUSCPTCARPETCTCERAMIC TILEDETDETAILDIADIAMETERDIMDIMENSIONDNDOWNDSDOWNSPOUTDWGDRAWINGEEASTEAEACHELECELECTRICALELEVELEVATION, ELEVATOREQEQUALEQUIPEQUIPMENTEXISTEXISTINGEXPEXPANSIONFDFLOOR DRAINFFFINISHED FLOORFECFIRE EXTINGUISHER W/ CABINETF. EXT.FIRE EXTINGUISHER W/O CABINETFINFINISHFLFLOOR, FLASHINGFTFOOT, FEETFTGFOOTINGGAGAGEGALVGALVANIZEDGCGENERAL CONTRACTORGLGLASSGYPGPYSUMH.HGTHEIGHTHCHOLLOW COREHORIZHORIZONTALH/CHANDICAPHMHOLLOW METALHVACHEATING, VENTINALTION, & A/CIDINSIDE DIAMETERININCHINSULINSULATION, INSULATEDINTINTERIORINCLINCLUDEDJAN, JCJANITOR'S CLOSETJTJOINTKITKITCHEN, KITCHENETTELAVLAVATORYLAMLAMINATEMATLMATERIALMAXMAXIMUMMDOMEDIUM DENSITY OVERLAYMECHMECHANICALMTLMETALMINMINIMUMMOMASONRY OPENINGNNORTHNICNOT IN CONTRACTNONUMBERNOMNOMINALNTSNOT TO SCALEOCON CENTERODOUTSIDE DIAMETEOPNGOPENINGOPPOPPOSITEPLPLATEPLYWDPLYWOODPRELIMPRELIMINARYPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPTDPAINTEDP.T.PRESSURE TREATEDPVCPOLYVINYL CHLORIDEQTQUARRY TILERRADIUS, RISERRDROOF DRAIN, ROADREINFREINFORCEMENTREQDREQUIREDREVREVISIONRMROOMROROUGH OPENINGSSOUTHSCHSCHEDULESCWSOLD CORE WOODSECTSECTIONSHTSHEETSIMSIMILARSLSLOPESPECSPECIFICATIONSQSQUARESTDSTANDARDSTLSTEELSUSPSUSPENDEDS. STLSTAINLESS STEELT & GTONGUE AND GROOVETEL TELEPHONETEMPTEMPORARYTH, THKTHICK, THICKNESSTHRSLDTHRESHOLDTOSTOP OF STEEL, SLABTOWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVCTVINYL COMPOSITION TILEVERTVERTICALVESTVESTIBULEVIFVERIFY IN FIELDVWCVINYL WALL COVERINGWWIDTH, WASTE, WATER, WESTW/WITHW/OWITHOUTWDWOODWTWEIGHTWWFWELDED WIRE FABRICWWMWELDED WIRE MESH214AB12CLPL2512102.5' A107TITLE LINEDWG. NO.SHEET NO.DWG. NAMEELEVATION NO.SHEET NO.SECTION NO.SHEET NO.ELEVATIONSECTION MARKERDETAIL MARKERDOOR NUMBERWINDOW TYPECOLUMN GRIDCENTER LINEROOM NUMBERELEVATION TAGSPOT ELEVATIONPARTITION TYPEROOF SLOPE INDIATIONREVISIONPROPERTY LINENORTH ARROWCHANGE IN ELEVATION1" DN.SHEET NO.DRAWING NAMESHEET NO.DRAWING NAMESHEET NO.DRAWING NAME30=?/DUNLQ7HUUDFHJURFHU\EXLOGLQJB(PLO\UYW^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sdARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSA101 GARAGE FLOOR PLANA102 FIRST FLOOR PLANA103 SECOND FLOOR PLANA104 THIRD FLOOR PLANA105 FOURTH FLOOR PLANA201 ELEVATIONSA202 ELEVATIONSA301 BUILDING SECTIONA701 PARTITION ASSEMBLIESA702 PARTITION ASSEMBLIESA710 HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIESA711 HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIESA901 3D VIEWSREVISIONSNo. Description DateCIVIL DRAWINGSSP-1 OVERALL EXISTING SITE AND P.U.D. PLANSP-2 CIVIL SITE PLAN 1"=50'SP-3 CIVIL SITE PLAN 1"=20'SP-4 CIVIL SITE PLAN NW 1"=10'SP-5 CIVIL SITE PLAN SW 1"=10'SP-6 CIVIL SITE PLAN NE 1"=10'SP-7 CIVIL SITE PLAN SE 1"=10'EX-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANCD-1 CIVIL DETAILSCD-2 CIVIL DETAILSCD-3 CIVIL DETAILSCD-4 CIVIL DETAILSCD-5 CIVIL DETAILSCD-6 CIVIL DETAILSLANDSCAPE DRAWINGSGMP ELECTRIC UTILITY DIAGRAML1.0 LAYOUT, MATERIALS & GRADINGL1.00 PHASE ONE ILLUSTRATIVE PLANL1.1 EXISTING TREE INVENTORYL1.2 PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONSL1.3 PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONSL2.0 PLANTING PLAN #SD-16-30 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MARY JO CAPOTRIO—1408 HINESBURG ROAD PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-30 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio for a planned unit development to subdivide a 1.02 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 0.47 acres (lot #3A) and 0.55 acres (lot #3B) and developing lot #3B with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 15, 2016. The applicant was represented by Andy Rowe. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Mary Jo Capotrio, seeks preliminary and final plat approval for a planned unit development to subdivide a 1.02 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 0.47 acres (lot #3A) and 0.55 acres (lot #3B) and developing lot #3B with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Mary Jo Capotrio. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 4. The application was received on October 5, 2016. 5. The plans submitted consists of eight (8) pages. The first three (3) pages were prepared by Sterling Construction, Inc., dated 9/29/16, and labeled “Capotrio—Duplex 1408 Hinesburg Rd., S. Burl, VT.” The next five (5) pages were prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 9/30/16, and labeled “Site Plan,” “Utility & Grading Plan,” “Landscaping & EPSC Plan,” “Sitework Details & Specifications,” and “Subdivision Plat.” A) DENSITY The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The parcel allows for a maximum density of four (4) units (1.02 x 4=4.08 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and one new duplex), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the purchase of two (2) TDRs. They propose to purchase these TDRs from the Diane J. Wessel Trust, 70 Highland Terrace. B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS #SD-16-30 2 Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The duplex units will be served by new municipal water and wastewater service connections. The existing single family home is served by an onsite drilled well and municipal wastewater service. A condition of plat approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies. (A)(2) 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. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers this criterion met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The application materials state the proposed PUD will generate three (3) P.M. Peak Hour trips. The proposed new dwelling units (a duplex) will be accessed via a public street, Dubois Drive, and the existing home will maintain its current access on Hinesburg Road. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers this criterion met. (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. A review of city wetland maps indicates existing wetlands are more than 250 feet from the site. The Board finds this criterion is met. (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. Building neighborhoods of higher density in the Southeast Quadrant that allow for the conservation of land in other areas of the SEQ is supported by both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. The Board finds that the construction of the proposed duplex unit with the use of TDRs in the SEQ is compatible with the planned development patterns in the area. (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. #SD-16-30 3 The proposed project creates an open corridor along the eastern edge of the property and, by siting the proposed duplex close to Dubois Drive, an open area between the existing house and the proposed duplex. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(7) 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 Fire Marshall stated in an email dated November 1, 2016 that there are “no real issues for FD [Fire Department] on this one” and noted that a building permit from the Fire Marshall would be required for the duplex building. The Board finds this criterion met. (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 landowners. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds this criterion met. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the project to be aligned with the goals and objectives of the district since it will have a greater density of housing combined with off-site conservation of land in the Natural Resources Protection District through the use of TDRs. The Board finds this criterion to be met. D. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT This proposed subdivision is located in the Southeast Quadrant District. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts. The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub- district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The proposed building will not be more than 28 feet in height. The Board finds this criterion to be met. #SD-16-30 4 B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels This topic has been covered already in these comments. The Board finds this criterion met. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. There are no proposed new streets. The Board finds this criterion met. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. The existing single family home will be located on its own parcel and maintain its property. The proposed duplex on Lot 3B will include common land the management of which will be overseen by an association comprised of the two (2) owners of the units. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed 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 Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers these criteria to be met. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. The Board finds that the conservation of agricultural lands is not applicable to this project. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board 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, #SD-16-30 5 streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. A condition of final plat approval will be that prior to receiving a zoning permit the applicant will need to obtain whichever of the permits listed above are necessary for the site. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. This topic has been covered already in these comments. The Board finds this criterion met. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers these criteria to be met. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not 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. This topic has already been covered in these comments. The Board finds this criterion met. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board 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. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. There are no new proposed streets. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. There are no new proposed streets. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and #SD-16-30 6 neighborhoods shall apply. There are no new proposed streets. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. ... B. … C. … D. Parks Design and Development. (1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. The proposed development is adjacent to city owned open space parcels and within approximately a quarter-mile of a proposed city park as specified on the Community Facilities map in the Comprehensive Plan. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. There are no new proposed streets. (4) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. #SD-16-30 7 Lot 3A (existing single family house) has a ratio of 1:2 and Lot 3B (proposed duplex) has a ratio of 1.3:1 when viewed from Dubois Drive; however, if the lot is considered from Hinesburg Road then the ratio is approximately 1:2.9, according to the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from the lot ratio requirement. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub-district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. (2) Sidewalks. (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street. There are no new proposed streets or sidewalks. The Board notes that there is a sidewalk on the north side of Dubois Drive. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The City Arborist submitted the following comments regarding the landscaping in an email dated November 1, 2016:  Tree protection plans and details need to be included with the plans for all trees slated to be retained  The 2 Pin Oaks being retained are in the city right of way and therefore are city trees. Any pruning on city trees shall be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. In the event of damage to city trees, the city shall be compensated as per the City Tree Ordinance A condition of plat approval will be that the applicant provide tree protection plans and details and that any pruning of city trees be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. (4) On-street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub-districts. This requirement may be waived within the SEQ-NRN sub-district provided the DRB finds sufficient off-street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses adjacent to the street. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be #SD-16-30 8 provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. There are no new streets, intersections, or street/sidewalk lighting proposed as part of this project. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas…A minimum of thirty- five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south… (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the façade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The proposed housing units and existing housing unit have entrances facing public roads—a requirement of the regulations. The westerly duplex unit would have a front façade facing Hinesburg Road and the easterly duplex unit would have a façade facing Dubois Drive, thus giving the entire building a presence on both streets. Lot 3B has a front setback of less than 25 feet on Dubois Drive, which is suggested by the regulations, and a setback of greater than 50 ft. on Hinesburg Road. Each garage will be set back at least eight feet from the front building line of the duplex unit with which it is associated. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. E. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting a waiver from the lot ratio requirement discussed above for Lot 3B. The applicant is requesting that Lot 3B be permitted to have a lot ratio of 1.3:1. The Board finds the waiver #SD-16-30 9 being requested is in alignment with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District as already discussed in these comments. F. STORMWATER The Stormwater Section provided the following comments to the Board in an email dated October 14, 2016: The applicant should consider installing a backflow preventer on the 6” SDR35 PVC sump pump discharge pipe, as to prevent basement flooding during potential extreme wet weather conditions. The applicant provided the following response to those comments in an email dated October 21,2016: The existing single family home is served by a sump pump. Each of the new units in the duplex will also be served by a sump pump. The discharges from all three sump pumps is collected in a 6” gravity pipe that outlets to the existing ditch near the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive. A check valve is typically provided on the sump pump discharge piping or integral to the pump. We’ve added a note (#3) to sheet 2 requiring either a check valve or backwater valve be provided to prevent back-ups into the basements. Stormwater Section staff indicated their support of the applicant’s response. A condition of approval will be that the applicant submit updated plans reflecting the changes proposed in their response. G. ENERGY STANDARDS The Board notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. H. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) The parcel is developed with a single family dwelling on 1.02 acres and has one (1) transferable development right (1.2 units per acre X 1.02 acres = 1.224 or 1). In order to construct the proposed two family dwelling, the applicant will have to obtain two (2) TDRs. The applicant will be required to obtain these TDRs prior to the issuance of a zoning permit to construct the proposed two family dwelling. I. 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: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, staff considers that this criterion is being met. #SD-16-30 10 B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) 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. The proposed building is to be located to the north of the existing single family dwelling approximately the same distance from Hinesburg Road thereby creating a desirable transition from structure to structure. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This standard does not apply to the proposed two family dwelling. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) 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 anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed building would be less than 28 ft. in height and similar in scale to the existing single family dwelling. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. All new utilities will be placed underground. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) 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. The Board considers that the proposed building is similar to the surrounding houses in style and height. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. #SD-16-30 11 In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: 1. Access to Abutting Properties. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not consider the reservation of land to be necessary. 2. Utility Services. 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 Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 3. Disposal of Wastes. 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 applicant submitted material stating that garbage will be stored in the garage units of each individual unit. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. 5. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) 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 total cost of the project is estimated at $445,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $11,400 which is being met Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $3,900 Additional over $500,000 1% $0 Minimum Landscaping $ $11,400 Proposed Landscaping $11,600 DECISION Motion by __________, seconded by __________, to approve preliminary & final plat application #SD- 16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio subject to the following conditions: #SD-16-30 12 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. b. The plan must be revised to include tree protection plans and details for all trees slated to be retained. c. A note must be added to the “Utility & Grading Plan” plan sheet requiring either a check valve or backwater valve be provided to prevent back-ups into the basements. 4. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 5. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 6. The proposed project must 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 must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 7. The applicant must post an $11,400 landscaping bond prior to issuance of the zoning permit. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 8. For purposes of the LDRs, the two (2) footprint lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. 9. Any pruning of city trees must be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. 10. Any proposed utility cabinets or ground mounted HVAC units must be approved by the Development Review Board prior to installation. 11. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 12. The mylars must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 13. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #SD-16-30 13 14. All legal documents needed to effectuate the two (2) TDRs needed for the two family dwelling shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, recorded in the land records, and delivered to the Administrative Officer before the zoning permit may be issued for the two family dwelling. 15. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format prior to the issuance of the zoning permit. 16. The final plat plans (Site Plan and Subdivision Plat) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. EXIST.CEDARHEDGEEX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAYEXISTING SINGLEFAMILY DWELLINGEXISTINGCONCRETESIDEWALKEX.CONC.CURBEX.CONC.CURBHINESBURGROADDUBOIS DRIVEMARY JO CAPOTRION/F1408 HINESBURG ROAD0860-1408EXIST. DRILLED WELLEX. HOUSE184'204'99'242'PAVEDDRIVEWAYSTONERIP-RAPSIGN"45 MPH"LOT 3A20,447 SFLOT 3B24,004 SF41241441641842042142142142 1 420420420420420 419419418 418418418418417417416416416416416415415415414414414414413413413410410413STREET SIGN66'2CARGARAGEEXIST.CEDARHEDGE57'20'TOST.GEORGE84'EXIST. CBRIM = 410.9GARAGE(1)DWELLING (1)GARAGE(2)DWELLING (2)PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYPROPOSED FOOTPRINTLOT LINE50'52'44'10'PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYPROPOSEDRETAINING WALL10'10'10'WALKWAYWALK30'30'40'99'70'132'N/FLOCATION MAPN.T.S.PROJECT PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEOVERHEAD WIRE, UTILITY POLEWATER MAIN/SERVICE, VALVE, WELL,HYDRANTGAS MAIN/SERVICE, VALVEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICSANITARY SEWER, MANHOLENOW OR FORMERLYDITCH CENTERLINETREE/HEDGE LINEKEVIN J. & CAROL MCQUILLENN/F1406 HINESBURG ROAD0860-1406RAYMOND M. & CAROL A. BOURBEAUN/F3DUBOISDRIVE0575-00003ROBERT K. & SARAH R. ZIMMERMANNN/F1410 HINESBURG ROAD0860-1410SITEHINESBURG ROADDUBOISDR.BUTLER FARMSDateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDate RevisionByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing09-30-16ARNDSNDS-16081CAPOTRIO PROPERTY1408 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTOHEWGESGENERAL NOTES:1. THIS PLAN WAS CREATED BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY (AUG. 2016),LEDGEKNOLL RECORD DRAWINGS, AERIAL IMAGERY, AND ACONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PREPARED BY GROVER ENGINEERING DATEDJULY 25, 2016.2. EXISTING UTILITIES ARE BASED UPON THE SOURCES LISTED ABOVE.ADDITIONAL UTILITIES MAY BE PRESENT ON THE PROJECT PARCEL. THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY DIGSAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.TOKENNEDYDRIVEEX.CONC.SIDEWALK1CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONN/F0860-1275CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONN/F0860-1275CURTIS D & JESSICA C RUSSELLN/F4DUBOISDRIVE0575-00004SITE PLANTELEPHONEPEDESTAL ANDCONC. PADGRAVELDRIVEWAYHIGHLANDTERRACE ZONING DISTRICT SOUTHEAST QUADRANT - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIALPARCEL ID 0860-01408 (1408 HINESBURG ROAD)PARCEL AREA 1.02 ACRESBUILDING COVERAGE 15% MAXIMUMLOT COVERAGE 30% MAXIMUMMINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT YARD 20 FEET - DUBOIS DRIVEFRONT YARD 57 FEET - HINESBURG ROAD(7' FUTURE ROW + 50 SETBACK)SIDE YARD 10 FEETREAR YARD 30 FEETMINIMUM LOT SIZE 12,000 SQUARE FEET - SINGLE FAMILY20,000 SQUARE FEET - TWO FAMILYBUILDING HEIGHT 28 FT MAXIMUM FOR PITCHED ROOFWATER SERVICE EXISTING DRILLED WELL / PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SERVICESEWER SERVICE EXISTING / PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SERVICESPROJECT STATISTICSLOT COVERAGELOT 3ABUILDING COVERAGEEXISTING = 4.5%PROPOSED = 9.9%TOTAL LOT COVERAGEEXISTING = 11.2%PROPOSED = 24.3%LOT 3BBUILDING COVERAGEEXISTING = 0%PROPOSED = 10.3%TOTAL LOT COVERAGEEXISTING = 0%PROPOSED = 18.6%PROPOSED PARKINGLOT 3AREQUIRED PARKING = 2 SPACES PER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGPROPOSED PARKING = 2 GARAGE SPACES + DRIVEWAYLOT 3BREQUIRED PARKING = 2 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT PLUS 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 4 UNITSPROPOSED PARKING = 4 SPACES (2 GARAGE SPACES + 2 DRIVEWAY SPACES)ONE CAR GARAGE FOR EACH DWELLING UNITONEDRIVEWAYSPACEFOREACHDWELLINGUNITLDR ARTICLE 13.01B(f) STATES:A GARAGE OR A CARPORT MAY BE USED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. ADRIVEWAY MAY ONLY BE USED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION WHERE IT SERVESA ONE-FAMILY DWELLING. A DRIVEWAY CAN BE CONSIDERED TO MEET THE PARKINGREQUIREMENT FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IF CARS CAN ENTER OR EXIT INDEPENDENTLY FOREACH UNIT.BUTLERDR.LEDGEKNOLLPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEFOOTPRINT BUILDING LOTBUTLERDRIVEBUILDING SETBACKTHE CONTRACTOR SHALLNOTIFY DIG SAFE® AT 811PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.SHEET INDEX1SITEPLAN2UTILITY&GRADINGPLAN3 LANDSCAPING & EPSC PLAN4 SITEWORK DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS5 SUBDIVISION PLAT SMHRIM = 412.04INV = 404.88"PVCSEWERX415.5E EEEGGGC CCW W W WWWSS 416417415416416415417414 414.5XX419.541341341 5415 416416415416SS EEFDFDW 414415415415G G LOT 3A20,447 SFLOT 3B24,004 SF414416SWWG GGGGGG G G GOHEOHOH OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEEEEEE OHEOHEOHEHE G G 4214 2 1 4204204 1 9418 418418418417417416416416416416415415415414414414413413413413W WWWWWSSSSWSSSSWWWNEW BURIED ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONSSERVICES. MINIMIZE HEDGE DISTURBANCEDURING INSTALLATION OF NEW CONDUITSEXISTING ELECTRIC SERVICE TOBE INTERCEPTED TO SERVE NEWDUPLEX BUILDINGEXISTING GAS SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED(COORDINATE WITH UTILITY)REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB ANDCONSTRUCT NEW DEPRESSED CURB ATEACH DRIVE. THE EXISTING CURB SHALLBE REMOVED TO THE NEAREST JOINT, IFTHE CURB SEGMENT TO REMAIN IS LESSTHAN 5 FEET.EXIST. OVERHEAD COMMUNICATIONUTILITY LINES TO SINGLE FAMILYHOME TO BE REMOVED4"PVCFOOTINGDRAINEXIST. CBRIM = 410.9 4"PVCGARAGE DWELLING (1)DWELLING (2)DRIVEWAYAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATERSERVICE. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BYTEST PITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.PROPOSED FOOTPRINTLOT LINEFFE = 417.5415.5FFE = 417.5C.O.INV=412.6NEW YARD INLETRIM = 414.52" FD IN = 413.06" INV = 412.86" INV = 412.0(TO DAYLIGHT)NEW RETAINING WALL(DESIGN BY OTHERS)6"SDR35PVC C.O.NEW 6" SDR35 SEWER SERVICE TO BECONNECTED TO EXISTING 8" MAIN WITH8"X6" WYE AND DOUBLE BELL COUPLING(8" MAIN INV = 402.6+)6"SDR35PVCSEWER CLEANOUTINV = 406.0+GARAGE415.5+TYPICAL NEW 3/4" TYPE 'K' COPPERWATER SERVICE AND CURBSTOPEXISTING 10" DI WATER4"SEWEREXISTINGGASMAINTYPICAL 6" SDR35PVC SEWERNEW GAS SERVICE. MINIMIZE HEDGEDISTURBANCE DURING INSTALLATIONTYPICAL SUMP PUMP DISCHARGECOORDINATE LOCATION AND PIPESIZE WITH BUILDERCAPOTRION/FEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING 4" DRAIN PIPE ATSUMP PUMP DISCHARGENEW CLEANOUT AND 4" SDR35PVC DRAIN PIPE, CONNECT TOEXISTING 4" SUMP PUMP DRAIN.EXISTING SHARED WATER SUPPLYFROM DRILLED WELL TO CAPOTRIOBASEMENT AND SERVICE TOMCQUILLEN10' MIN.10'MIN.14'14'22'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDate RevisionByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing09-30-16ARNDSNDS-16081CAPOTRIO PROPERTY1408 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTEXIST.CEDARHEDGEEXISTINGCONCRETECURBEX.CONC.CURBHINESBURGROADDUBOIS DRIVEEXIST. DRILLED WELLEXISTINGCONCRETESIDEWALKSMHRIM = 412.70INV = 401.25STONERIP-RAP218"RCPUTILITY &GRADING PLANGRAVEL DRIVETOST.GEORGEDRIVEWAYEXIST.CEDARHEDGEEXISTINGWATERSUPPLYPIPINGTOREMAINTHE CONTRACTOR SHALLNOTIFY DIG SAFE® AT 811PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.MCQUILLENN/FEXISTINGCONCRETECURBNOTES:1. SEE OTHER PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION AND TYPICALCONSTRUCTION DETAILS.2. THE HOME BUILDER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR INSURING THAT THEFOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT FOR A PERMANENTDEWATERING SYSTEM THAT ADDRESSES THE PRESENCE OFGROUNDWATER. THIS GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN ANTICIPATES THAT ASUMP PUMP SYSTEM WILL BE USED, DISCHARGING TO A GRAVITYCOLLECTION SYSTEM DAYLIGHTING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THEPARCEL.1 inch = 10 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE10 051020 40GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS1) ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2011 VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATIONSTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC WORKSSPECIFICATIONS AND THESE PLANS.2) UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM BEST AVAILABLE SOURCES AND MAY ORMAY NOT BE EITHER ACCURATE OR COMPLETE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OFEXISTING UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITY,PUBLIC ORPRIVATE, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY NEW TAP LOCATIONS ANDSHALL CONNECT ALL UTILITIES TO NEAREST SOURCE THROUGH COORDINATION WITH UTILITY OWNER.3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTINGVEGETATION, PAVEMENT, AND STRUCTURES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK UNLESS NOTED ONTHESE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TRASH FROM SITE UPON COMPLETION OFCONSTRUCTION.4) ANY SURFACES, LINES OR STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR'SOPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT IN WHICH THEY WEREFOUND IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION. SEE OTHER DETAIL SHEETS OF THESEPLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS.5) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL BE ERECTEDBYTHECONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, VTRANSE-STANDARDS AND CITY REQUIREMENTS.6) A MINIMUM OF ONE-WAY TRAFFIC SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. CONTINUOUS TWO-WAY TRAFFICWILL BE REQUIRED AT NIGHT, PEAK-HOURS, AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE DURING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES. IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OWNER, MUNICIPALITY OR ENGINEER, AUNIFORMEDTRAFFIC CONTROL OFFICER SHALL DIRECT TRAFFIC DURING PEAK HOURS. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONSIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL BE ERECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITHSTATE AND TOWN STANDARDS.7) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AT HIS OR HER OWN EXPENSE FOR ENSURINGTHATTHEDUST CREATED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CREATE A NUISANCE OR SAFETY HAZARD.WHERE AND WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO WET SECTIONS OFTHE CONSTRUCTION AREA WITH WATER, APPLY CALCIUM CHLORIDE, OR SWEEP THE STREET WITH APOWER BROOM FOR DUST CONTROL.8) ALL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN 6 INCH LIFTS AND THOROUGHLY COMPACTED TO 95% OFMAXIMUMDENSITY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T-99 STANDARDPROCTOR.9) ALL SLOPES, DITCHES AND DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH, CLEAN ANDFREEOFPOCKETS WITH SUFFICIENT SLOPE TO ENSURE DRAINAGE.10) CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND CERTIFICATION IS OFTEN REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF STATEAND LOCAL PERMITS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS DETAILED ONTHESE PLANS BE OBSERVED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC.(L&D)TODETERMINE IF THE WORK IS BEING PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS . L&D WAIVES ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR PROBLEMS THAT MAYARISE FROM: FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE DESIGNINTENTTHATTHEY CONVEY, ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OFTHE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT L&D's PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, AND/OR FAILURETO SCHEDULE OBSERVATION OF THE WORK AND TESTING IN PROGRESS. X415.5E EEEGGGC CCW W W WWWSS 416417415416416415417414 414.5XX419.5413413415T XX415416416415416SS E E FDFDW 414415415415412414416418SWWG GGGGGG G G GOHEOHOH OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEEEEEE OHEOHEOHEOHE G G 421421 4204204 20419418418 418418417417416416416416416415415415414414414414413413413410410413W WWWWWSSSSSSWSSSSWWWSAVE & PROTECT (2) EXISTING OAKTREES. TRIM LOWER BRANCHES ASREQUIRED FOR DRIVE ACCESSSAVE & PROTECTEXISTING OAK TREESAVE&PROTECT(4)EXISTING PINE TREESSAVE & PROTECTEXISTING FRUIT TREESSAVE & PROTECTEXISTING PINE TREEAFAFAFEXISTING WILLOW TREETO BE TRANSPLANTEDNEW LOCATION OFTRANSPLANTEDWILLOW TREEPGPGPGABAB20 TO24 TO(FILL GAPS IN EXISTINGHEDGE AS NEEDED)X415.5E EEEGGGC CCW W W WWWSS 416417415416416415417414 414.5XX419.5413413415415 416416415416SS EEW 414415415415412414416SWWOHEOHOHOHEOHEOHEEEEEE OHEOHEOHEOHE 421420418418417416416416416416415415415414414414414413413413410410413W WWWWWSSSSSSWSSSWWWTYPICAL TEMPORARY SILT FENCETYPICAL INLET PROTECTIONINSTALL & MAINTAIN TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION EXITDateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDate RevisionByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing09-30-16ARNDSNDS-16081CAPOTRIO PROPERTY1408 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTEX.CONC.SIDEWALKEX.CONC.CURBEX.CONC.CURBHINESBURGROADDUBOIS DRIVEEX. HOUSEEX.CONC.SIDEWALKPAVEDDRIVEWAY3LANDSCAPING &EPSC PLANPAVEDDRIVEWAYEXIST.CEDARHEDGEBUTLERDRIVEFOUNDATION PLANTING REQUIREMENTS1. A MINIMUM OF 18 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS AND 12 EVERGREEN SHRUBS SHALL BEPLANTED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PLANTINGS FOR ABUILDING CONTAINING MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE APPORTIONED AROUND THEPERIMETER OF THE BUILDING BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF WINDOWS, PORCHES,DECKS, RETAINING WALLS, AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS.2. PLANTS SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THE LISTS BELOW, BASED UPON THEBUILDING'S EXPOSURE. A MINIMUM OF 2 SPECIES SHALL BE SELECTED FROM EACHGROUP (DECIDUOUS SHRUBS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS)Botanical Name Common Name SizeCornus alba 'Sibirica'Tartarian dogwood #3FOR SUNNY FACING SOUTH AND WEST BUILDING ELEVATIONSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'Jim Dandy winterberry #3#3Ilex verticillata 'Redsprite'Red Sprite winterberry#3Clethra alnifolia 'Compacta'Compact summersweet#3Rhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'Gro-Low sumacJuniperus communis 'GreenCarpet'Green carpet juniper #3EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussataRussian arborvitae #3#3Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor'Broadmoor juniperBotanical NameCommon Name SizeSymphoricarpus albaCommon snowberry #3FOR SHADY FACING NORTH AND EAST BUILDING ELEVATIONSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSHydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'Annabelle smooth hydrangea #3#3Ilex glabra 'Shamrock'Inkberry#3Clethra alnifolia 'Rubyspice'Ruby spice summersweet#3Rhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'Gro-Low sumacTaxus x media 'Hicksii'Green carpet juniper #3EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussataRussian arborvitae #3#3Juniperus sabina 'Monna''Calgary carpet juniperTREE PLANTING DETAILNTS1. EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE TRUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OFTHE ROOTBALL. TREES WHERE THE TRUNK FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE TOPOF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL.2. STAKING REQUIRED ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE TREES WILL BE SUBJECTED TO WINDY CONDITIONSAS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. STAKES SHALL BE REMOVEDBY THECONTRACTOR AT THE END OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD.3. TREES SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER PLANTING.4. EXAMINE ENTIRE TREE AND REMOVE ALL NURSERY TAGS, TREE WRAP, ROPE, STRINGANDSURVEYOR TAPE PRIOR TO PLANTING TO PREVENT GIRDLING.5. THERE SHALL BE NO WATERING BERM INSTALLED AROUND TREES.6. PLANT MIX SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING RATIO: 3 PARTS EXISTING SOIL, 1 PART TOPSOIL7.TREEPITTOBE3TIMESASWIDEASROOTBALL.8. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR CRUSHED ROOTS AND DEAD OR INJURED BRANCHES.EX.CONC.SIDEWALKEX.CONC.CURBEX.CONC.CURBHINESBURGROADDUBOIS DRIVEEX. HOUSEEX.CONC.SIDEWALKPAVEDDRIVEWAYPAVEDDRIVEWAYEXIST.CEDARHEDGEBUTLERDRIVEEX. HOUSEPAVEDDRIVEWAYEPSC NOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET 4 FOR EROSION PROTECTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS.2. ALL TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL STABILIZATIONEROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMIT REQUIREMENTSTHIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE VERMONT CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT SINCE LESS THAN 1 ACREOF CUMULATIVE GROUND DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THELOW RISK SITE HANDBOOK FOR EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE. AT A MINIMUM, THESE SHALL INCLUDE:- MARKING THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TO PRESERVE EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OFCONSTRUCTION- PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN- LIMITING THE DISTURBED AREA TO THAT WHICH IS ACTIVELY BEING WORKED- TEMPORARY STABILIZATION OF AREAS WHERE WORK IS SUSPENDED- INSTALLATION OF A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT- INLET PROTECTION AT ALL EXISTING CATCHBASINS- INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE OR EROSION LOGS ALONG THE DOWNSLOPE PERIMETEROF THEDISTURBED AREA AND AROUND SOIL STOCKPILES- SWEEPING PAVED AREAS TO REMOVE SEDIMENTEXIST.CEDARHEDGETREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS1. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, BASED UPONTHE KEY BELOW. TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE FIELD ADJUSTED TO AVOID EXISTINGUTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FEATURES.Acer x freemanii ‘Celzam’'Celebration' Freeman MapleAFBotanical nameCommon nameAbies balsameaBalsam firABPicea glaucaWhite sprucePGThuja occidentalis 'Nigra'Northern white cedarTO DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDate RevisionByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing09-30-16ARNDSNDS-16081CAPOTRIO PROPERTY1408 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT4SITEWORK DETAILS& SPECIFICATIONS2" THICK BITUMINOUSCONCRETETYPE III APRON OVER 18" MIN.GRAVEL BASE (VAOT SPEC.#704.05 FINE OR #704.06).NTSCONCRETEGRASSEDGESEE PLANCURBROADGRASS2" RADIUSSTREET7"LC451/"SIDELINEFINISH GRADE(SEE BELOW)CONCRETE CURBSDR 35 PVC CONNECTIONSANITARY SEWER MAIN6" MINIMUM SERVICENTSFOR SANITARY SEWERMINIMUM SLOPE 1/4"/FTTHE SANITARY SEWER SERVICESHALL RUN PERPENDICULAR FROMTHE MAIN TO AT LEAST THESTREET LINESTORM OR SANITARY SEWER PIPEWATER MAINWATER MAINSTORM OR SANITARY SEWER PIPESINGLE 20' NOMINAL LENGTHOF WATER PIPENTSNTSNTSSANITARYSEWER=10'MIN.STORM SEWER = 5' MIN.WATER MAIN10' MIN.10' MIN.IF THE SANITARY SEWER PIPE IS LOCATEDABOVE THE WATER PIPE, THE SEWER PIPEJOINTS ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATER MAINSHALL BE CONCRETE ENCASED18" MIN.18" MIN.STORM OR SANITARY SEWER PIPEIF THE SANITARY SEWER PIPE IS LOCATED ABOVETHE WATER PIPE, THE SEWER PIPE JOINTS ON EACHSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN SHALL BE CONCRETEENCASED (SEE PLAN VIEW)NTSGROUND4" X 8" X 16" SOLIDCONCRETE BLOCKWATERMAINBACKFILL WITHCLEAN MATERIALNO LARGERTHAN 8"6"LEDGE PAYMENTLIMITPROVIDE HORIZONTALGOOSE NECKEDGE PAYMENT LIMIT3/4" BALL VALVETYPECORPORATION STOP (AYMcDONALD OR CAMBRIDGEBRASS)NOTE:ALL DOMESTIC SERVICES AND DOMESTIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC WATERSYSTEM SHALL BE PROTECTED ACCORDING TO THEIR DEGREE OF HAZARD, WITH A BACKFLOW PREVENTIONASSEMBLY, AND WITH AN APPROPRIATE THERMAL EXPANSION SYSTEM.TYPICAL BEDDING REQUIREMENTSSEE WATER TRENCH DETAIL FORCOPPER TUBING SHALL BECONTINUOUS BETWEENCURBSTOP AND BUILDING3/4" TYPE 'K' COPPERSERVICEORASSHOWNONPLAN45°THE WATER SERVICE SHALL RUNPERPENDICULAR FROM THE MAIN TOAT LEAST THE STREET LINE.EXTENSION TYPE CURB BOX WITHPLUG TYPE COVERSTAINLESS STEEL RODNOTES:1. TEFLON THREAD SEALANT SHALL BE USED ON ALL CORPORATION STOPS PRIOR TO INSERTION.A. SPIRAL WRAP COMPLETELY COVERING THE THREAD AREA WITH TWO WRAPS.B. PIPE DOPE OR OTHER LIQUID THREAD SEALANTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE2. CORPORATION STOPS SHALL NOT BE PLACED LESS THAN 12" APART ALONG PIPE.BALL TYPE CURBSTOP(AY McDONALD ORCAMBRIDGE BRASS)COPPER PIPING SHALL BECONTINUOUS FROM THECORPORATION TO THE CURBSTOPLEDGE PAYMENT LIMITON PLANSAS NOTEDSHORTLENGTHOFPIPE18"X18"X8"-250045° BEND12"NTSD/2+6"FORBURIALOVERPIPEBOARD, WHICH IS SUITABLEPLACE 4" THICK INSULATEDIFCOVERISLESSTHAN4FEET,FINISH GRADE6"MIN. 5 1/2' COVERUNDISTURBED SOILDIAMETER)LARGER THAN 1 1/2"LIFTS (NO STONESCOMPACTED IN 6"BACKFILL THOROUGHLYAPPROVED ROCK FREEIN 6" LIFTSTHOROUGHLY COMPACTEDEXCAVATED MATERIALBACKFILL WITH APPROVEDAND READY FOR BACKFILLINGUNTIL ALL WORK IS FINISHEDENTIRELY FREE OF WATERALL TIMES KEEP THE TRENCHESTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATDIAMETER OF PIPE)('D' IS OUTSIDEUNDISTURBED SOILOF REPOSESLOPED TO THE ANGLESHALL BE SHEETED ORENTERED BY PERSONNEL4 FT. OR MORE IN DEPTHTHE SIDES OF TRENCHESD+2 FEETP.S.I.CONCRETE PAD6" THICK GRAVEL BASEUNDER CONCRETE PAD3/8" CRUSHED STONEPRIOR TO PAVING, THE PORTIONOF CURBING TO BE IN CONTACTWITH THE PAVEMENT SHALL BECOATED WITH EMULSIFIED ASPHALTNTS1CLASSBCONCRETE1DEPRESSED CURBCRUSHED GRAVEL FOR SUBBASE (704.05)2"12"18"7"NEW PAVEMENTEXISTING GRAVEL12"PAVEMENTEXISTINGCUTEDGEOFEXISTINGPAVEMENT BACK A MINIMUMOF 12". CLEAN AND TREATWITH EMULSION PRIOR TO PAVINGNOTES:THE NEW PAVEMENT DEPTH SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING PAVEMENT DEPTH.AT A MINIMUM, 4" OF TYPE III PAVEMENT SHALL BE PLACED IN 2 LIFTS.CAST IRON CLEANOUT FRAME&COVERNTSDTOP VIEW OF JOINTJOINING TWO ROLLS OF SILT FENCEHARDWOOD STAKEHARDWOOD STAKE(MAX. 8' O.C.)6"6"FILTER FABRIC36" MIN.12" MIN.STAKES TO BE DRIVENMIN. 12" INTO GROUNDNTSEROSION CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS1. TO ENSURE PROPER FUNCTION, THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED. THIS INCLUDES DRIVING THE POSTS TO ADEPTH OF 12 INCHES, KEYING THE SILT FENCE FABRIC 6 INCHES INTO THE GROUND, AND COMPACTING THE SOIL OVER THEKEYED-IN PORTION OF THE FABRIC. USE ONLY MANUAL METHODS OF INSTALLATION WITHIN WETLANDS AND BUFFER ZONES.2. THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND UNTIL ESTABLISHMENTOF VEGETATION SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION. AFTER WORK IS COMPLETE AND THE DISTURBED SOIL HAS BEENSTABILIZED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SILT FENCE FROM THE SITE.3. INSPECT EROSION CONTROL FENCE AT REGULAR INTERVALS AND AFTER EVERY HEAVY RAINFALL TO ENSURE THAT THEREARE NO BROKEN POSTS, FABRIC TEARS, WASHOUTS OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE FABRIC, OR EXCESSIVE SEDIMENTACCUMULATION. ANY DAMAGE OR DEFECTS SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENTACCUMULATIONOFMORETHANONE-QUARTER THE HEIGHT OF THE FABRIC SHALL BE REMOVED AND PLACED IN AN APPROPRIATE AREA OUTSIDEWETLANDS AND BUFFER ZONES.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCE AT OTHER LOCATIONS AS NEEDED.NTSDIA. STONE1-1/2" TO 2"OR SUBGRADEEXISTING GROUNDPUBLIC ROADWAYPUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY50' MINROADWAYWIDTH OFRIGHT-OF-WAYPUBLIC50' MIN8" MINENTRANCE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONDUST DURING THE SUMMER.2. THEUSEOFCALCIUMCHLORIDEORWATERMAYBENECESSARYTOCONTROLSHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BY THE CONTRACTOR.ALL SEDIMENT TRACKED, SPILLED, OR WASHED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAYREPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT.PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND ANDTRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF -WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENTNOTES:CONCRETE CURB(WHERE APPLICABLE)EXTEND 1" MINIMUM AND 3"MAXIMUM FROM EDGE OFGRATE (TYP)SECURE USING 3-1/2" DIA.PRESSURE DISKS AND 175#PLASTIC TIES FASTENED TOINLET GRATE (TYP)THREE DIMENSIONALNATURAL FIBER INLETPROTECTION DEVICE(VTRANS INLETPROTECTION DEVICE,TYPE 2)INLET CASTINGNTSSECTIONGRATETOP LAYERGRATE BARBOTTOM LAYERINLET PROTECTION PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS:SEDIGUARD (WWW.EARTSUPPORTSYSTEMS.COM)BLOCKSOM & CO. (WWW.BLOCKSOM.COM)OR APPROVED EQUALZIP TIEPRESSURE DISKNTS6" SDR35 PVC OUTLET12" DI GRATE12" DRAIN BASIN - NYLOPLASTOR APPROVED EQUAL3/4" - 1 1/2"CRUSHED STONEBEDDING SHALL EXTEND A MIN.OF 6" BELOW BOTTOM OF BASINADAPTER AS NEEDEDTEMPORARY WATERTIGHTPLUG, AS REQUIREDTOBUILDINGTO BUILDINGNEW BIT. CONC.SMOOTH SAW CUT EXISTING BIT.PAVEMENT PRIOR TO PAVING1'-0"MIN.THICKNESS OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ORA MINIMUM OF 1 1/2" OF TYPE IIIOVER 2 1/2" OF TYPE II BASE COURSEEXISTINGBIT. PAVINGON ONE ORBOTH SIDESTHICKNESS OF EXISTING GRAVELOR 18" MINIMUM DENSE GRADEDCRUSHED STONE PER VT. STATETRENCHEXCAVATIONEXISTINGGRAVEL BASENTSSPEC. 704.061. SET UP AND MAINTAIN SIGNS AND OTHER SAFETY CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCEWITH VTRANS2. RESHAPE HOLE AND PATCH AREA BY CUTTING WITH CONCRETE SAW INTO A SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR SHAPE.CUT SIDE FACES VERTICALLY. RESHAPE DOWNWARD TO SOLID MATERIAL AND AROUND HOLE TO SOLIDPAVEMENT.3. BACKFILL TRENCH IN 6" LIFTS AND COMPACT EACH LIFT TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURECONTENT AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D698 STANDARD PROCTOR.4. REMOVE ALL LOOSE MATERIAL AND THOROUGHLY SWEEP THE HOLE AREA CLEAN OF MUDAND STANDING WATER.5. APPLY LIQUID EMULSION (RS-1) TO VERTICAL FACES IN A UNIFORM MANNER. DO NOTPUDDLEEMULSIONONBOTTOM OF THE HOLE.7. FILL TOP OF HOLE WITH TYPE III BITUMINOUS CONCRETE AND COMPACT IN LIFTS OFNO MORE THAN 2". FINALLIFT SHOULD BE 1/2" TO 1" ABOVE ADJOINING PAVEMENT BEFORE COMPACTION SO THAT AFTER COMPACTIONTHE PATCH IS LEVEL WITH THE EXISTING PAVEMENT. EACH LIFT SHOULD BE THOROUGHLYCOMPACTEDWITHAVIBRATORY PLATE COMPACTOR OR A VIBRATORY PORTABLE ROLLER. HAND TAMP SHOULD ONLY BE USES FORSMALL AREAS (LESS THAN 1 S.F.).8. CLEAN UP AREA. DO NOT LEAVE EXCESS FILL OR EXCAVATED MATERIAL ON THE PAVEMENT. REMOVE SAFETYSIGNS AND DEVICES.6. PLACE TYPE II BASE COURSE PAVEMENT A MINIMUM OF 2 1/2" THICK.E-STANDARDS AND THE MUTCD.ALL JOINTS SHALL BETHOROUGHLY CLEANEDAND COATED WITHEMULSIFIED ASPHALTPRIOR TO PAVING7"6"9"18"TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 ( 1/2" SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK. )20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING2) CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERYWITH 1/8" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS.1) CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONSNOTES:END AREA = 0.94 S.F.12"2"1/4" RADIUS1/2" RADIUSPAVEMENTCLASS B CONCRETEOF CURBING TO BE IN CONTACTPRIOR TO PAVING, THE PORTIONWITH PAVEMENT SHALL BE COATEDWITH EMULSIFIED ASPHALTN.T.S.3) ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED NOT LESSTHAN 5% AND NOT MORE THAN 7% 1KEVIN J. & CAROL MCQUILLENN/FVOL.217, PG.401CURTIS D. & JESSICA C. RUSSELLN/FVOL.1072, PG.56RAYMOND M. & CAROL A. BOURBEAUN/FVOL.417, PG.47CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONN/FVOL.371, PGS.86-88ROBERT K. & SARAH R. ZIMMERMANNN/FVOL.1013, PG.52422IPSRBF LAYINGON SIDE1" IPFTRUDELL1.7' AGCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONN/FVOL.371, PGS.86-88 183.99' S06°26'42"E 204.09'N80°35'40"E98.68' S05°54'16"E242.00'N80°16'52"EDUBOISDRIVEBUTLERDRIVEHINESBURG ROAD (VTROUTE116)66'SEENOTE#860' SEE PLAN1A&1B200.35'N82°44'22"ETOA1"IPF,0.7'AGWITHILLEGIBLECAP150.00'S05°54'16"E TOANIRF,1.7'AGEXISTINGDRIVEEXISTINGDWELLINGEXISTING WELL(SEE NOTE 9)IPSS78°45'53"W132.49'S83°39'05"W69.77'N07°04'40"W 99.09' 84.08'39.57'1234552.00'44.00'50.00'IPSIPSIPSLOT 3B0.55 ACRESLOT 3A0.47 ACRESFOOTPRINTLOT 3B-1FOOTPRINTLOT 3B-2EXISTINGGARAGEEXISTINGGARAGE10'PROPOSED 10' UTILITYEASEMENT TO LOT 3APROPOSED 15' UTILITYEASEMENT TO LOT 3A15'IPSIPSConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 MorseDriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULD ONLY BEUSED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINAL LOCAL REVIEWPRELIMINARYSKETCH/CONCEPTMARY JO CAPOTRIOLANDS OF1408 HINESBURG RD., SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT16081JKRJKRDLH09-30-16SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYPROJECT NO.RECORD DRAWINGCONSTRUCTIONACT 250 REVIEWdescriptiondatebyAS NOTED5SUBDIVISIONPLATDLH / DJGLEGENDOWNER:MARY JO CAPOTRIOVOL. 828, PAGE 3501.02 ACRESN/FTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THISPLAT IS BASED ON INFORMATION ABSTRACTEDFROM PERTINENT DEEDS AND/OR OTHEROFFICIAL RECORDS, AND MARKERS EVIDENTON THE PROPERTY, AND CONFORMS WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA 1403.DATED THIS ___ DAY OF ________, 2016__________________________ L.S. #656SITE LOCATIONN.T.S.NOTES:CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. __________ , 2016ATTEST: ________________ TOWN CLERK__ M., AND RECORDED IN SLIDE #_______RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT______ O'CLOCKCITY CLERK'S OFFICEAGAE&T1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCHINCLUDING THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."LEDGE KNOLL SUBDIVISION, HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS, HINESBURG ROAD., SO.BURLINGTON." DATED 11-16-83 BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ANDRECORDED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS IN SLIDE 172.1.B. "LOT LAYOUT - H. DUBOIS, SO. BURLINGTON, DATED AUG., '69, AS RECORDED INVOL. 80, PAGE 126 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BUTLER FARMS, OWNED BY HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS,HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT." DATED 1-17-85 BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. AND RECORDED IN SLIDE 194.4 OF THE CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WERE GENERATED FROM SURVEY GRADEGPS OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN AUGUST, 2016, AND ARE BASED ON THEVERMONT STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83(CORS 1996).3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/ORRIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN AUGUST, 2016, THE METHODSAND THE RESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THE MINIMUMPRECISION REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN SURVEYS6. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL 0860-01408 IN THE CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON'S PROPERTY TAX DATABASE.7.ALLMONUMENTATIONISASNOTEDONPLAN.8. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH OF ROUTE 116 (HINESBURG ROAD) OF 66' IS BASEDON THE ABOVE PLANS.9. THE MCQUILLEN PARCEL (1406 HINESBURG ROAD) HAS NON-EXCLUSIVE WATERRIGHTS TO THE EXISTING WELL ON THE PROJECT PARCEL (SEE VOL. 217, PAGE401). THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO THE MCQUILLENPARCEL IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSEDSUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 3B.10.LOTS 3A & 3B MAY BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATIONAND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITY SERVICES TO SERVE THE EXISTING ANDPROPOSED DWELLINGS.PROJECT PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETNOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEOVERHEAD WIREORIGINAL LOT NUMBER, SEE NOTE 1AORIGINAL LOT NUMBER, SEE NOTE 1BIPFSITEHINESBURGRD.DUBOISDR.BUTLER FARMS13IPSNUMBER PNT NORTHING EASTINGLOT 3B-1 1 705347.46 1469043.272,600 SF 2 705356.24 1469094.51LOT 3B-2 2 705356.24 1469094.512,200 SF 3 705363.67 1469137.89IP 4 705352.64 1468955.02IP 5 705393.49 1469193.55FOOTPRINT LOT DATA: 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: MP-16-01 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: November 10, 2016 Continued master plan application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Board had asked at the last meeting to have a summary discussion on the various items previously discussed. A summary of items discussed will be provided in advance of the meeting. VIA HAND-DELIVERY October 12, 2016 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Master Plan Application Parcel ID #1260-0200F and 0970-00255 Planned Unit Development Dear Development Review Board, On September 6, 2016, the Applicant, O’Brien Farm Road, LLC met with the South Burlington Development Review Board (the “Board,”) at the “Hearing” to discuss its application for a Master Plan Approval (the “Master Plan”) for the planned development of up to 450 dwelling units on approximately 37.5 acres of land located in the C1-LR and R12 Zoning Districts in the Northwest Quadrant of the City of South Burlington. The site is adjacent to Eldredge Street, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road (the “Project”). At the Hearing several conclusions were reached regarding the proposed application. Several additional questions were asked, and information was requested. The following letter is divided into several parts for your convenience. They are as follows: I. Project Background, Applications in Process, Intended Goals of Master Plan Approval; II. Discussion of Additional Information Requested by the Board at the Hearing and Density Increase; III. Amended List Of Waiver Requests For Approval (After Discussion with the Board); and IV. Findings of Fact: Applicant Requested Findings of Fact Related to the Master Plan; V. Conclusions and Next Steps. I. Project Background, Applications in Process, Intended Goals of Master Plan Approval. O’Brien Farm Road, LLC (the “Applicant”), is proceeding with two parallel applications for these parcels of land. The first application is this Master Plan. The second application is for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for a subdivision of land (as a PUD), and a proposed residential for-sale housing development located in several zones of this Master Plan (the 2 “Preliminary Plat”). Previous discussions with the Board have not made clear the link between these two projects, which the Applicant wishes to clarify to provide context to this Master Plan. Specifically, the Applicant wishes to make clear to the Development Review Board that the Master Plan being granted creates no permitted right for the Applicant to build anything until the Preliminary Plat is also approved. Attached as Exhibit A please find an updated version of the Preliminary Plat application that the Applicant is currently working on, and which it anticipates filing in the coming weeks. This application (which was discussed at the August 23, 2016 Board hearing), will have a full review under the existing PUD standards. As part of that review, specific elevations, site coverages, road and sidewalk types will be provided to the Board, and final granting of waivers regarding height of buildings in the residential zones will be requested by the Applicant.1 As you can see, this application is proposing a number of different for sale residential housing options. On the north end of the property it is also creating a subdivision of large multi- family/mixed-use lots, which will be developed in the future. The goal of moving forward both this Master Plan and the initial PUD application is to ensure the development is reviewed holistically in its entirety by the Board.2 Also, the Applicant wishes to use the Master Plan process to secure findings and waivers applicable to future reviews that will allow the project to develop as conceived and committed to by O’ Brien Brothers over the course of its phased build out. The City Master Plan process is designed for this exact purpose, and the flexibility of the waivers available is an appropriate and powerful tool for ensuring a clear and transparent development process – for both the City and the Applicant – as the project is realized. In combination, the Master Plan and first PUD review should allow for the entire development to be reviewed one time in detail as a PUD, allowing later applications for individual aspects of the approved PUD to proceed more expeditiously with abbreviated review proceedings. Below at Section II, the Board will find a review of the outstanding items requested at the last hearing. We have provided what we hope and believe to be sufficient information for the DRB to make an informed decision on these items. Section III and Section IV outline the waivers and findings of fact requested by the Applicant in totality (including stating again items already agreed), such that one comprehensive list is available for review and final confirmation by the Board. Items not included here, but included previously, are no longer being requested. The Applicant has drafted specific language pertaining to each request, such that it can be reviewed and agreed prior to drafting the particular decision, in the hope of expediting the permit issuance and subsequent board reviews. 1 Originally the Applicant requested those waivers as part of the Master Plan, but the Applicant understands the need for more information prior to issuance of such waivers. 2 For instance, the Applicant is requesting that site coverage be viewed for the entirety of the site, not on a lot-by-lot basis. In this case, and many others, requirements of the regulations can be met by the development in totality and not necessarily by each individual portion. 3 The Board should note when reviewing the below that there is a difference between waivers and findings requested by the Applicant. A waiver creates a specific entitled right for the applicant to do something contrary to the regulations as written: i.e., a holder of a permitted waiver may build to X height instead of Y height as prescribed as a result of the DRB’s approval. A finding of fact states something definitively, such that it is binding for future reviews, but does not necessarily create a right for the Applicant to do something contrary to the Regulations.3 For instance, the Board might find that the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan as currently outlined (and as it confirmed at the last hearing). This does not waive any requirements necessarily; it simply states a fact to expedite future reviews. For instance, the Preliminary Plat will require we prove the development furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Master Plan is approved, satisfaction of that criterion would be proven by referencing the Board’s finding of fact in the Master Plan. By way of an example of past findings that were not waivers, the Applicant would point to the Rye Meadows Master Plan decision, attached as Exhibit F. In this decision the Board made a number of findings that were not necessarily waivers of any particular regulation. For instance, page four of the decision finds that: “PUD lot coverage to exclude City Recreation Paths.” This is not a coverage waiver (they still must meet requirements) but rather a finding that dictates how the DRB will evaluate future applications in the Master Plan. The distinction is subtle, but it is important to note the Board has issued such findings before. In review of the below, the Applicant hopes that the Board will agree that the waivers and findings requested are suitable and appropriate for the scale of the proposed development as well as the site’s unique topography, and that the level of detail required to issue such findings has been satisfied. The Applicant suggests that some items can be postponed until Preliminary Plat review, as the Board should note that nothing in this Master Plan will be useful or valid outside of that Preliminary Plat process. It is a requisite second step that will proceed before the Board in the coming months. II. Discussion of Additional Information Requested by the Board at the Hearing and Density Increase. Before discussing the particular waivers and findings proposed, the Applicant would like to address each request for more information from the Hearing to complete those discussions: A. Project Density: Since the Hearing the density proposed for the plan has changed and the current maximum density proposed within the Master Plan is 458 units, the majority of which will be located in Zone 2 shown on the Master Plan. Since our initial filing two items have impacted the density proposed: 3 In many instances herein the Applicant is requesting from the DRB a finding of fact. A finding of fact is a binding part of the decision issued. Section 15.07 (C)(2) of the Regulations describes the binding findings of fact the DRB issues pertaining to Master Plans: “The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent…applications made pursuant to the master plan approval.” [emphasis added] 4 1. Addition of Existing Lot 3 to Master Plan: At the request of the Board and the City Staff, the Applicant has added the land of Existing Lot 3 from a previous subdivision to the Master Plan area. The result of this addition was to increase the acreage within the Master Plan by two acres or 24 units. The Applicant hopes that with the height waivers requested, these additional units can be accommodated in Zone 2. 2. Zoning District Boundary Adjustment: In the course of preparing our Preliminary Plat application discussed herein, the Applicant discovered that the zoning district boundary between the R1-PRD and R12 Zoning District is actually located a bit further into the Master Plan area than originally shown. This error was the result of the length of time that the Applicant has been working on this project. Years ago when planning first started, the City Zoning map was much harder to interpret in terms of district boundaries, and when we checked the line against newer information available, it became clear the line was off a bit, by approximately 50-60’. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. Given that our plan as reviewed and discussed by the Board has contemplated the district boundary to be approximately 50-60’ west of where it actually is located, the Applicant is requesting that the Board approve the relocation of that line to be 50’ to the west, as shown on the Master Plan.4 This will also help to ensure that future houses can be located mostly in a single district, which will help to simplify future Preliminary Plat applications. Because the Board has generally expressed its approval for the direction of the Project, the Applicant has calculated density assuming this 50’ district boundary relocation is approved. With the boundary located 50’ west as proposed for approval by the Board, the overall acreage by district for the land within the Master Plan is as follows: District Acreage Density (# of units) R12 37.82 453.8 C1-LR .27 3.24 R1-PRD 1.07 1.0 Total 458.04 B. Open Space Near Kennedy Drive Included: The open space included at Zone 5B is approximately 2 acres, and has been formerly added to the Master Plan as requested. The Board will note that this has increased the land involved in the Master Plan, and therefore increased the maximum potential density for the plan. The new density will be requested and built in the high density residential area. The number of homes in the area currently proposed for Preliminary Plat will remain the same. 4 Authority is specifically granted to the board to move the border of a zoning district up to 50’ at Section 3.03(C) of the Regulations. 5 C. Green Space Connectivity Zone 4 to Zone 6 and Remaining Lands: Further to staff comments the Board requested that the Applicant expand the green connection between Zone 4, Zone 6, and the west side of New City Road E. In response to this request, the Applicant has reconfigured the proposed housing and removed a unit from the east side of New City Road E, to allow for green corridors connecting Zone 4 with the remaining lands. These corridors are approximately 30’ wide and create a contiguous green connection between open space areas, and future phases of development as Staff requested and which the Board reiterated. As you will see at Exhibit B, the Master Plan has been reconfigured to show an Open Space Easement extending into Zone 6, and across New City Road E ending at the remaining lands. This easement is not intended to be untouched wilderness, but rather is an intentional and landscaped green pedestrian corridor. The particular landscaping proposed here and the pedestrian path will be presented as part of the Preliminary Plat application that is forthcoming. At the Master Plan level, the applicant feels that the reconfigured and broader proposed area and its designation as a pedestrian easement should be sufficient for the Board to move forward on this item. D. Committee Meetings: The Applicant anticipates having met with the Bike and Pedestrian Committee with regard to the planned development prior to this hearing, though at the time of filing this letter, it has not because of that Committee’s frequency of meetings. The Applicant is confident that the Bike and Pedestrian Committee will support the project because they have supported similar concepts of the current plan as they relate to their purview, including the street typologies presented in previous meetings. The Applicant is committed to reviewing the Preliminary Plat application with the Bike and Pedestrian Committee as it is developed and the fine details are worked out. Since the last Master Plan hearing with the Board the Applicant has met with the Recreation & Parks Committee, and they reviewed the Master Plan and passed a unanimous motion in support of the plan’s general layout and recreation concepts. We will continue working with the committee to determine the particular features and amenities to be included in the project as part of the Preliminary Plat application now progressing. At the Master Plan level, the Applicant would suggest that the Board can find that the general pedestrian circulation pattern and means of circulation presented is acceptable and that the open space proposed is located appropriately, but that particular details as to features constructed, plantings, crosswalks, dimensions, etc., will be flushed out at subsequent review proceedings. E. Height Waivers: At Staff’s direction the Applicant provided the board with a list of specific architectural conditions it is willing to commit to in order to demonstrate that future buildings will be of a high quality and of appropriate massing, fenestration and articulation justifying the granting of height waivers in Zone 2. In reviewing these 6 features and the massing study presented, the Board agreed that the height seemed reasonable for this area. Neighbors to the Project have also supported the height waiver in previous hearings, because it allows for less dense development near their existing homes while still achieving the intended zoning of the site. This last point was thoughtfully and intentionally planned by the Applicant to be consistent with the existing development pattern, considerate of existing neighbors, while also meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to add more housing at a broad spectrum of price points in a dense and efficient neighborhood layout. During the Hearing it was discussed that Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) states the following: For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public right of ways. As stated above, the Board cannot definitively grant a height waiver without the plans and elevations specified. Given this, the Applicant is no longer requesting a height waiver be granted at this time. The Applicant is requesting a binding finding of fact, pursuant to Section 15.07 of the Regulations. To this end, the Applicant would request that the board consider a statement such as the following be included in the Findings of Fact: The Board finds the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Furthermore, the Board finds that the architectural conditions committed to by the Applicant provide sufficient detail as to how the future buildings will be massed and articulated. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B. We believe that by issuing this finding it will secure the Applicant’s ability to statutorily achieve a height waiver, while also allowing the Board to retain final review of the proposed architecture, per Section 3.07 of the Regulations. Furthermore, this finding will protect the applicant against potential changes in underlying zoning which might prohibit the issuance of height waivers in the future. While this may be unlikely, it is not outside the realm of possibility, and given that the integrity of this entire Master Plan application (including the significant commitments made by the Applicant) rests in the density shift to Zone 2, the Applicant considers the security provided by this finding to be of 7 paramount importance, while also retaining the Board’s continued oversight. F. Distance from Building Entrances to Park Access: Attached as Exhibit C the Board will find a visual which demonstrates the distance that must be travelled by pedestrians from various locations in the project to trail heads for various park amenities. As you will see, no resident is required to walk more than 500 feet before being able to enter park and trail amenities. For reference, if we consider an average walking speed to be about 3.2 miles per hour, it would take approximately 1 minute and 42 seconds to walk the furthest distance to access the park. This seems like a perfectly reasonable – not to mention healthy – level of walking required to access a park area that is designed for recreation and health benefits. The network of sidewalks in the Project will also be pleasantly landscaped with street trees and front porches near and facing pedestrian passersby (as shown in road sections included in this Application), which will provide for an enjoyable experience prior to arriving in any of the park spaces. Furthermore, requiring residents to walk on sidewalks rather than shortcutting into the park at several additional mid-block easements will further the potential for interaction amongst residents, enabling community building and relationship development that might not otherwise happen. G. Building Types: Staff requested more information on building types proposed in each zone. Attached as Exhibit D, please find the site plan associated with the Sketch Plan Application heard by the Board on August 23rd. As discussed at that hearing, these are the general structure/concepts contemplated in each zone. As mentioned above, a preliminary plat application will be forthcoming that applies for specific permits to build all of the low density residential portions shown. The larger buildings are not currently proposed, and will not be proposed in the forthcoming Preliminary Plat application. Rather, this Master Plan seeks to set up future review of those buildings under Site Plan review only by satisfying PUD and waiver requirements in this Master Plan and the Preliminary Plat review. H. Zone by Zone Coverage: The Applicant believes its coverage request may be misunderstood by the Board. In a recent Rye Meadows Master Plan decision, the board found the following: “The applicant is seeking approval at the Master Plan level for the maximum building and lot coverages to be for the entire PUD and not any individual lot. The board finds this to be acceptable.” In this Project the Applicant is requesting an identical finding, nothing more. At this level of review there are a number of different development scenarios that might play out, and each could result in different coverage levels on particular lots or in particular zones. Duplexes have different coverage requirements than multi-family, commercial is also different than multi-family and duplex. Without final locations and unit mixes confirmed, knowing exact coverages is impossible. Given that the Application seeks to Master Plan 39.3 acres of land, it seems reasonable that coverage should be evaluated for 39.3 acres of land collectively on a project by 8 project basis when detailed plans are submitted. This is also what Rye Meadows sought and ultimately obtained. In an effort to preserve maximum flexibility we would request that the Board approve the finding that it approved for Rye Meadows. If such a finding is not applicable to this Project, the Applicant suggests the following finding: The Board finds that building and lot coverages will be reviewed for the entire PUD and not any individual lot, provided that coverage in each zone does not exceed the following: Description Approximate Acreage Maximum Total Coverage Zone 1 7.1 50% Zone 2A 7.3 85% Zone 2B 3.4 90% Zone 3 4.4 65% Zone 4 4.1 25% Zone 5 5 25% Zone 6 8.0 60% The Board should note that while these percentages are high, hitting the maximum in each zone would not be permitted, as it would cause the total coverage for the entire 39.16 acre parcel to exceed the maximum by a substantial amount. The percentages are high because we do not have specific proposals for these zones, and so it is difficult to make a definitive proposal at this time. If these limits are too low, it will force complicated and time consuming permit amendments at some future date. This is why the Applicant prefers the finding requested, which was issued for Rye Meadows and seems most applicable and appropriate for the Master Plan process. I. Master Plan Phasing: As mentioned above, the Applicant is simultaneously pursuing a Preliminary Plat application for the permitting of a for sale residential neighborhood. This neighborhood will consist of approximately 117 new residential housing units. Given this, the Applicant has an interest in making sure the development and construction of that neighborhood is conducive to the enjoyment of potential customers, which will involve access to neighborhood amenities. That said, the Applicant also must ensure that construction can happen safely and effectively. Construction of the roads, sidewalks and infrastructure elements of this plan will be a challenging process because of the grade, underlying rock ledge, and scale of development. For some reference, the length of the roads within the project total approximately 4,000 lineal feet. In addition to the earth work involved in the road construction, 117 house foundations must also be installed in the residential zones. The site is steep and heavily forested, and the housing proposed for construction is dense and 9 will take place over an extended construction period projected at approximately five +/- years. Some roads will require significant earth work with cuts of 8-10’ of material being removed. For this reason, large staging sites and material storage areas will be needed in various parts of the site. Furthermore, upland water diversion and temporary stormwater controls will also be required, which have yet to be definitively located, and which may require use of space within areas eventually deeded to public or open space use. Heavy equipment will be operating to clear land and haul earthen materials from different portions of the site to stockpiles, and truck traffic across the lands not involved in active infrastructure construction will be fairly high, including the potential for haul roads, etc. The park land that is surrounded by infrastructure will likely not be able to be in full use, until the majority of the housing is built around it, and the roads and sidewalks are complete. Without detailed construction plans that will be part of the Preliminary Plat application, it is difficult to make particular phasing commitments on the park space. While we understand that the Board needs more detail regarding when and how construction will occur, the Applicant suggests that this level of detail is better provided at the Preliminary Plat review (which will be happening in the coming weeks). During that review specific construction phasing can be provided, and specific triggers for construction of particular amenities can be permitted. Likewise, the Preliminary Plat application will define exactly what the park will include. It is of course difficult to warrant that something will be built, prior to understanding what will be built. At the Master Plan level, the Applicant suggests a much more general commitment to phasing. If during Preliminary Plat review details were discovered that changed our phasing needs, the Applicant might be required to re-open and amend this Master Plan, which would be a cumbersome and wholly unnecessary process, since the issue could just be settled at Preliminary Plat, where the Board has full authority to issue such phasing approvals. Given this, the specific recommendation herein for a finding is as follows: 1. Applicant will work with the Board during Preliminary Plat review to confirm project phasing that allows for the completion of pedestrian amenities to be linked with the completion of infrastructure and home construction, and a mutually agreed upon phasing plan will be developed. 2. Applicant agrees that the formal parkland highlighted at Exhibit G is relatively isolated from construction activities outside of Zone 1 and the start of Zone 3,and that this area will be developed when it is safe and reasonable to do so, as determined by the Board and the Applicant during Preliminary Plat review. The goal of these commitments is to say, we are in agreement that some pedestrian facilities, parks and recreation opportunities should be built prior to the completion of all infrastructure and structures. However, we need to consider this schedule carefully, and will do so at the Preliminary Plat level when all details are known. 10 With the above understanding, the Applicant realizes that the Board may still have lingering questions as to what this phasing plan might look like. To this end, we have provided a potential phasing plan at Exhibit H. As noted on the plan, it is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent a binding commitment. However, this is a potential starting point for the more detailed review we recommend at Preliminary Plat. J. Setback Waivers Information Requested: In its original application, the Applicant requested several setback waivers as part of Master Plan review. Currently, the Applicant has removed the majority of these requests, with the exception of front yard setback waivers. The Applicant believes that the issuance of front yard setback waivers is critical to the finalization of the Master Plan, as without such waivers, the major components of the plan cannot be constructed. If houses along New City Road A and New City Road E are forced to be 38-50 feet from the edge of the sidewalk or road (as the 30’ front yard setback would force), the park will fundamentally shrink, causing this Master Plan to be void and/or need amendment prior to issuance of any permits.5 Initially, the Applicant requested a blanket setback waiver because it could be universally applied to the Master Plan, and would be much less complicated. As Staff and the Board have indicated this is not desirable, the Applicant has proposed specific street types and zone-specific road waivers as listed below. It is important to note that the Applicant is requesting these setback waivers for two purposes: to provide a significant greenspace within the development and to provide more pedestrian-resident connectivity by engaging the architecture with the streetscape and pedestrian areas in the spirit of New Urbanism-style design. The Applicant is presenting the Board with several visuals for evaluation and approval. These visuals depict proposed building setbacks, street widths, right-of-way widths, sidewalk and recreation path locations and widths, driveway lengths and greenbelt widths. The Sections are broken down as follows and are attached at Exhibit E: 1. New City Road A: This section shows the proposed layout of amenities along New City Road A. It also shows the proposed minimum setbacks for porches and garage doors. You will note that while the requested setbacks are relatively small, the garage is a minimum distance of 20’ from the edge of the closest City-owned impervious surface (i.e. edge of sidewalk). This allows a space for parking between what the City will plow, and the garage itself. Porches are set back approximately 6’ from the ROW and 15’ from the edge of the closest impervious surface providing for a safe, comfortable, attractive and engaging neighborhood-style streetscape. 2. New City Road B (with Parking): This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road B in locations where parallel parking is provided. In this area we are requesting a setback that will allow structures to be 10’ from the edge of the sidewalks proposed. The required setback to allow for this location would be 6’. As shown on the view provided at Exhibit E, this would only be applicable at certain 5 As the Board knows, per Section 15.06(D) a change in the proposed open space areas in an approved Master Plan is considered a new application, and a Sketch Plan review and new Master Plan review would be required. 11 corners of the building given the curvature of the road. The resulting streetscape would at minimum have 19.5’ of width between the curb of New City Road B and the closest edge of the structure. That dimension includes 4’6” of greenbelt between the curb and the sidewalk, a 5’ sidewalk, and a minimum of 10’ of greenbelt in between the sidewalk and structure (4’ of which would occur in the ROW). Again, this creates a safe and engaging streetscape in a zone of the development that is intended to have a more urban-style pedestrian engagement with the buildings. 3. New City Road B (without Parking): This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road B in locations where no parking is provided. Again, in this Section we are requesting setbacks such that buildings can be 10’ from the edge of the sidewalk at their closest point. Because this road is curved, these setbacks will vary, 10’ would be the smallest point. Exhibit E, shows the curvature of the road and how that impacts the building line. Again the front yard setback would be 6’, allowing the buildings to be placed as shown. And as with the New City Road B section with parking the streetscape would at minimum have 19.5’ of width between the curb of New City Road B and the closest edge of the structure. The dimension includes 4’6” of greenbelt between the curb and the sidewalk, a 5’ sidewalk, and a minimum of 10’ of greenbelt in between the sidewalk and structure (4’ of which would occur in the ROW). 4. New City Road E: This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road E, again achieving a goal where the garage is 20’ minimum from the edge of the nearest impervious surface, and the porch is set closer to the street, while remaining outside of the right-of-way. Here the porch is shown just six feet from the edge of the ROW, requiring a 6’ front yard setback. The garage is setback 11.5’ from the edge of the ROW, but is 20’ from the edge of the sidewalk. You will notice that the porch location and the ability to project the porch proud of the garage is largely dictated by the edge of the City Right-of-way. While having driveway in the ROW is feasible, placing any part of the home in the ROW is not. When the ROW is well off the edge of the pavement as on this road, smaller setbacks are required in order to preserve the street-friendly presence the Applicant is looking for. Here we have 26 feet between the curb and the face of the structure. The dimension includes, 6.5’ of greenbelt, 5’ of sidewalk, 14.5 feet of greenbelt between the sidewalk and structure (8.5 feet of which would occur in the ROW). 5. Zone 1 and Zone 6 Residential Road Prototype: This road is not included on the Master Plan, but is an anticipated road type for use in Zone 1 and a portion of Zone 6. Locations for the road type are shown at Exhibit A. This road type is fairly innovative, and is something that to our knowledge has not been used before in the City. The sidewalk is integrated into the road surface to allow 20’ of flat surface for fire vehicle accessibility, while limiting pavement width to 15’. The effect will be to calm traffic via a narrower drive lane, while still providing a clearly defined pedestrian lane via a change in surface material, and to still meet Fire Department accessibility codes. This is an innovative way to provide for multiple modes of transportation while reducing impervious surfaces and accommodating emergency 12 vehicle requirements on a slow speed neighborhood-style street. As shown on this section, the relative narrowness of the road causes the need for slightly longer driveways to ensure porches can be proud of the garage, without entering the right of way. Here we are showing 25’ driveways.. The requested setback waiver to the porch is 5’. The requested waiver to the garage is 10’. The Applicant has provided all of these road typologies to the Director of Public Works and the City Fire Marshal for review. The Director of Public Works has indicated support at a conceptual level for the road types and, generally, the road layout overall. The Applicant is seeking a Master Plan approval of the setbacks required along each proposed roadway. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting findings of fact supportive of the road types and facilities defined herein. The specific language requested is provided in the following sections pertaining to waivers and findings. III. Amended List Of Waiver Requests For Approval (After Discussion with the Board): The following is a complete list of the waivers requested by the Applicant. Any waiver not included and previously discussed, is no longer requested. Where the Board has already decided a waiver is appropriate, the text is underlined. Where more information has been requested by the Board or Staff, it is provided below. Please note that some new waiver requests are also included below. A. Sketch Plan review for future applications under the Master Plan is waived. B. Applicant requests that the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1) which forces large setbacks and landscape buffers between residential and non-residential uses be waived within the borders of the Project to allow for mixed use development. C. Applicant requests that the Board waive the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) which states: “permanent pedestrian easements twenty feet in width may be required through blocks 600 feet or more in length.” There was some discussion about this waiver request at the Hearing, and additional information was requested by the Board. This information is provided and discussed above at Section II(E). Exhibit C has been provided demonstrating the distance that pedestrians will be required to walk in order to access amenities. As noted above, the distance is minimal, and the time it takes to reach each access is nominal. As discussed above, the Applicant believes that the trail amenities and the sidewalk and other pedestrian amenities proposed are connected. In prior discussions with the Planning Commission it was stated that the City has a goal of creating more space for neighbors to interact. The suggestion has been to increase the use of front porches to engage the streetscape and pedestrian traffic. The Applicant suggests that facilitating the use of sidewalks throughout the development and making those pedestrian areas 13 pleasant and attractive along with increased front porch elements and decreased front yard setbacks will further that stated goal of the Planning Commission and the City. D. Applicant requests the requirements of Section 3.06(H) pertaining to a 15’ green belt for non-residential development be waived. Section 3.06(H) of the regulations imposes a 15-foot continuous green strip as a front yard setback from the city ROW if the use proposed is non-residential. The Applicant believes that this additional setback is un-necessary, and that the use in the building should not impact the streetscape approved for the project. Herein at Exhibit E, Applicant has presented a streetscape concept along Road B, which may include non- residential uses. Applicant requests that the provisions of Section 3.06 regarding the 15’ green buffer be waived, such that the waivers requested below can control setbacks.6 E. Applicant has requested front yard setback waivers in Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 and Zone 6 that correspond with the street-scapes shown at Exhibit E. Specifically: 1. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road B are reduced to be 6’. 2. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road A are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11’ from the garage to the ROW. 3. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road E are reduced to be6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11.5’ from the garage to the ROW. 4. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks along planned residential access roads in Zone 1 and Zone 6 be reduced to be 5’ from the structure to the ROW and 10’ from the garage to the ROW. IV. Summary Findings of Fact: Requested Findings of Fact Related to the Master Plan. As outlined above, the Applicant is looking to confirm via binding findings of fact, several aspects of its application for Master Plan. Given the length and complexity of this application, the Applicant has provided the requested findings below in bold to help facilitate the creation of a decision. Items previously agreed to by the Board in meetings are underlined. Please note that some new findings not previously discussed are also suggested below. A.The Board finds that the provided application for a Master Plan for the construction of up to 4market-rate housing units presents a plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected districts. Applications made pursuant to this Master Plan are by participation in 6 Section 3.06(H) states in pertinent part: “No portion of the required front setback shall be used for storage or for any other purpose except as provided in this section. In addition, a continuous strip fifteen (15) feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way line and the balance of the lot, which strip should be landscaped and maintained in good appearance.” 14 this plan, also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that after a long discussion at the Hearing, this conclusion was reached and agreed, and we request that the board find this accordingly in its findings of fact and decision on this Master Plan such that the Applicant can move forward with security in planning all parts of this project. B.The Board finds that encroachment into the Class 3 wetlands located within the Project boundaries is permitted, as the requirements at Section 12.02(E)(3)(a-c) pertaining to this encroachment have been met. C.The Board finds that within the borders of the approved Master Plan, any zoning district boundary may be moved 50 feet in any direction, to accommodate the future applications for particular development on lots within the boundaries of the Master Plan. D.The Board finds that the Master Plan presented and approved is for the construction of up to 458 market-rate housing units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space on an approximately 39.16 acre parcel of land, located in the R12 and C1-LR zoning districts. E.The Board finds that all future applications made pursuant to this approved Master Plan are innovative because of their participation in this Master Plan. Staff comments have suggested that “innovation,” is a requirement for a project to be considered a PUD and to receive the benefit of waivers from the Board during review proceedings. The Board has concluded that the Master Plan presented is indeed innovative for a number of reasons stated on the record in the Hearing. Staff comments also suggest that future applications made pursuant to this Master Plan will need to prove their “innovation.” The applicant suggests that this continued evaluation of Project innovation at every level creates a vague and uncertain state for the Master Plan presented and approved as desirable by the Board. If an Application is made for land included in this Master Plan, pursuant to the plan presented here, that Application should receive the full benefit of the Master Plan, and should itself be considered innovative.7 F.The Board finds that within the Master Plan area future applications for development of a single structure on a single lot requires final site plan review and approval only. Including development where parking for that single structure may be shared with or located on more than one lot, provided the structure itself is entirely on a single lot. 7 The Applicant wishes to note as stated in the Hearing, that there does not appear to be any requirement that an application be innovative to receive PUD review in the current Regulations. The Board seemed to agree with this reading of the text of the Regulations at the Hearing. That said, because this issue was raised by Staff, and may be raised again, the Applicant is seeking this finding to insulate its future applications from this continued line of review. Regardless of whether the requirement of innovation exists, the Board has determined the Project to be innovative, and all parts of the project permitted subsequent to this plan are therefore also innovative. 15 The applicant is requesting this to expedite future reviews for large residential lots that will be created during the review of the Preliminary Plat application that is forthcoming. Once that application is reviewed and approved, the Applicant believes that only site plan review should be required for the large structures planned and approved as part of this Master Plan. Currently any application for residential units in the R12 district must be reviewed as a PUD. Continuing to require PUD review for the sub-parts of this Master Plan is redundant, given that an overarching review will be completed in the coming months. G.The Board finds that within the Master Plan, any subsequent approval to Preliminary and Final Plat approval shall require only Final Plat approval. This request is designed to expedite review of any amendments to the development that are requested. Once initial reviews are complete, if a mistake was made or something was missed, this expedited review will allow it to be changed quickly. H.“The applicant is seeking approval at the Master Plan level for the maximum building and lot coverages to be for the entire PUD and not any individual lot. The board finds this to be acceptable.” As mentioned above if this is not a sufficient finding, as it was for Rye Meadows (this is a quote from the Rye Meadows decision), the included above chart could be inserted setting maximums for each zone. However, this seems like an unnecessary complication at this early stage of review, and again there is clear and recent precedent for doing so. I.The Board finds that within the Master Plan, the addition of a deck, porch or sunroom to any single family or duplex home shall require only the issuance of a Zoning Permit. This request will not necessarily be applicable to the Applicant, but it will protect buyers who want to make these minor improvements to their home from needing to go through extensive permitting processes to do so. While we are amenable to holding this request until Preliminary Plat, we are unsure if process waivers can be issued at a Preliminary Plat level, or if they must be part of the Master Plan. J.The Board finds that the Project generated traffic of 428 PM Peak Hour Trips will not create an undue adverse effect on traffic in the surrounding area, as outlined in the TIA submitted. The Applicant wishes to note that while the TIA submitted contemplates 417 residential units and the current application contemplates 458 units, the TIA also contemplates 55,000 square feet of commercial and office space. The Master Plan area simply cannot fit 458 apartments and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, even with the proposed waivers. The Applicant has analyzed the trip ends available, and should 458 residential 16 units be constructed, a proportionate decrease in the amount of commercial space would allow for the trip ends to remain below the 428 projected in the TIA. Given this, the Applicant is comfortable that the finding of 428 PM Peak Hour trips is sufficient to accommodate its entire project, however the particular unit count and commercial space details unfold. K.The Board finds the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Furthermore, the Board finds that the architectural conditions committed to by the Applicant provide sufficient detail as to how the future buildings will be massed and articulated. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B. This request is explained in detail at Section II herein above. L.The Board finds that the general pedestrian circulation pattern and means of circulation presented is acceptable and that the open space proposed is both located and sized appropriately, but that particular details as to features constructed, plantings, crosswalks, dimensions, etc., will be determined during Preliminary Plat review. M.The Board finds the street locations and layouts shown in the Master Plan to be acceptable, subject to the review of the Director of Public Works, the Fire Chief and the City Stormwater Superintendent. N.The Board finds that Applicant will work with the Board during Preliminary Plat review to confirm project phasing that allows for the completion of pedestrian amenities to be linked with the completion of infrastructure and home construction, and a mutually agreed phasing plan will be developed. O.The Board finds that the formal parkland highlighted at Exhibit G will be developed as soon as it is safe and reasonable to do so, as determined by the Board and the Applicant during Preliminary Plat review. P.The Board finds that within the PUD uses allowed in the C1-LR zoning district (which comprises a portion of the land involved in the project) are allowed in the entirety of Zone 2, which is an appropriate location for such uses within the Master Plan community. The Applicant has made available in its previous application a legal opinion explaining how this finding is in compliance with the Regulations. The Board has requested a confirmation of such opinion by its attorney. The Applicant awaits a response on this 17 issue and hopes that the City attorney will confirm the Applicant’s reading of the Regulations. Q.The board finds that during future site plan reviews within the Master Plan, the Board may waive the requirements of Section 3.06(H) to facilitate commercial development within Zone 2, fronting on Kennedy Drive. There was limited discussion of this item at the Hearing, but the Applicant believes that with some clarification, the Board can grant this finding. The specific requirements of Section 3.06(H) are as follows: In the case of nonresidential uses, not more than thirty percent (30%) of the area of the required front yard setback shall be used for driveways and parking and the balance shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance…In addition, a continuous strip fifteen (15) feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right of way line and the balance of the lot, which strip should be landscaped and maintained in good appearance. The Applicant has already requested above that the separate 15 foot green strip (de-facto setback) requirement contained herein be waived by the Board. Here the Applicant requests that the board allow for future site plan reviews to modify the percentage of hardscape allowed in the front yard, in order to leave open the possibility of commercial type development facing Kennedy Drive. The reason for this request is that the Regulations view the front yard as being along Kennedy Drive, despite the fact that buildings will likely be oriented toward New City Road B. Future mixed-use plans may envision the space between the new building and Kennedy Drive as a hardscaped area available for outdoor café seating with pedestrian connections to the sidewalk. They may envision the area as suitable for screened storage for a commercial user. It is unclear currently what the specific proposal for this lot might be. What is clear, is that this restriction could be prohibitive of many creative ideas that the Board and City might find desirable. By finding that the Board has the ability to waive this provision in connection with future site plan reviews, the Board will leave open their ability to allow a specific plan at a future date to proceed, while not making a commitment for such allowance in their current decision. Again, this request speaks to the Applicant’s overall goal, which is for this Master Plan permit to set the stage for expeditious permitting in the future. Absent this finding, we believe that issuance of such a waiver would require the Applicant to enter into a PUD process, which will be trigger much more extensive permit proceedings which in large part defeats the purpose of having gone through this extensive Master Plan process in the first place. 18 R.The Board finds that up to 60% of the required landscaping costs associated with Site Plan review requirements for the lots in Zone 2 of the Master Plan can be allocated to landscaping in common elements of the Master Plan, including the park, with the approval of specific proposals by the Board at future reviews. This is a new request from the Applicant and is made with the intention of improving the community for all residents. In reviewing site coverage proposed in the different zones, the Applicant realized that in higher density areas, sites will be mostly covered by buildings and parking. This will limit the amount of space available on each site for landscaping. A five story residential apartment building of approximately 80,000 square feet could cost upwards of $10,000,000 to construct in full. Given current landscaping requirements, the landscape budget required for each structure could be over $100,000. While the Applicant understands that the goal should be to use that landscaping to enhance what will be a high-coverage lot and use, it might be impossible, awkward or wasteful to fit so much landscaping on the proposed lots. A similar situation recently took place on an airport project, and our goal would be to better utilize those landscaping dollars throughout the project for the betterment of the residents and the broader community The Applicant feels that opening up the use of landscape dollars to common areas of the site will allow for the largest impact on livability for residents. To be clear, this finding will not obligate the board to allow such allocation, but will create the possibility of such allocation being confirmed by the Board at a later hearing. Attached as Exhibit I the Board will find a landscape plan recently confirmed for the Hayes Apartment Project in South Burlington. As the Board may recall, this plan had a total associated landscaping value of approximately $51,000. This is half of the requirement for one potential building in the Master Plan. As shown on the attached plan, this landscape plan included 34 trees, many of which were of the 3” caliper. Three hardscaped patios, and over 300 shrubs. The potential budget for one lot in our Master Plan Zone 2 area could double these numbers. It is infeasible to think that 68 trees and 600 shrubs could – or should - fit on the lots shown in Zone 2 at Exhibit D. If they did fit, it is likely that the effect would be overwhelming, and contrary to the goals of the ordinance. Given this, the Applicant is requesting that the Board find accordingly, that the budget may be allocated to common elements of the Master Plan in addition to the individual lots where Site Plan review is proceeding, and at the Board’s discretion. S.The Board finds that perennials and ornamental grasses can be used in the Master Plan and that the cost of such plantings will be allowed in satisfaction of Landscape Budget Requirements for all portions of this Master Plan. The Applicant’s landscape architect has advised that perennials and ornamental grasses are not counted toward landscape budget requirements in South Burlington. The Applicant believes that these are desirable and attractive plantings, as confirmed by the 19 Applicants award winning Landscape Architect. The Applicant hopes that the Board will allow these plants to be included to facilitate the best landscape design possible, and avoid a seemingly arbitrary restriction for the landscape designer. V. Conclusions and Next Steps: To conclude, we would like to focus not on the particulars included above, but importantly also on the big picture goals of this application and the review and feedback the Applicant has received thus far. After all this is a Master Plan and it should be looked at as a high level review of a project, with the nitty gritty details to be parsed out in the Preliminary and Final Plat applications, which are forthcoming. The Applicant has been meeting with City staff and the Board discussing this project in particular detail since the first sketch plan application was filed in August of 2014. In that time the Project has admittedly been altered, but we believe it has consistently changed for the better, adapting to and better addressing community needs, and moving toward a project that can be supported by a broad spectrum of interests and stakeholders within this area and of the broader city. The Project has been thoughtfully designed to be sensitive and respectful to its neighbors, and by proactively addressing the needs of those neighbors our development now enjoys many of those neighbor’s support. To that end the Applicant would also note that per City and State regulations we have mailed nearly 300 notices per meeting to our neighbors to warn them of relevant hearings over the course of the last two years. As the Board has seen, the number of interested or concerned parties that have attended those hearings is likely less than twenty individuals over that time period. And those who have attended, while voicing initial concerns, have been largely supportive of the Project and how it has been structured to transition from lower density-type residential units adjacent to existing properties to the higher density and larger buildings closer to the Kennedy Drive-Kimball Avenue intersection. By doing so the project creates a balance of being respectful of existing residents while also achieving the underlying zoning density as desired by the City and providing much needed new housing stock of in a variety of ownership and price point options as directed by the Building Homes Together initiative. Many projects of this scale are controversial and raise the ire of neighbors, but this project has not. We believe the reason is that we have been proactive in addressing concerns, have dedicated significant open space and public land, and are being respectful of an existing development pattern while also innovative in how we achieve the desired density. We are proud of this fact and believe that this development will be a wonderful addition to this area and to the community at large. The Applicant has also received the support of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee in the form of a unanimous resolution at their last hearing. Based upon previews reviews by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee the Applicant is optimistic about meeting with that committee on October 12, prior to this hearing but after this information was submitted to Staff. However, at their last review of the proposed development layout they were very receptive to what was being proposed, and the project has only become more fleshed out since that time. The Applicant has shown the project plans to the Planning Commission, and to a 20 number of other City volunteers and stakeholders, all of whom have voiced support for the plan, including the siting of high density residential uses. Now, the Applicant is before the Board for the second time and is providing the additional information requested for this Master Plan application. We are hopeful that the Board now has enough information at hand that it can support the Applicant’s requested findings of fact and applicable waivers for a Master Plan so that we might move on to the Preliminary Plat submission, where the Board will have further oversight and authority over more granular details. We also recognize that our Master Plan application has deviated from most – if not all – that have previously come before the Board in that it is proposing a high level review prior to moving forward on the detailed review found in the Plat process. However, we also believe that is the purpose of having a Master Plan process in the first place. The Applicant firmly believes our requests are grounded in the text of the Land Development Regulations, which allow for the Board to create binding findings of fact, to waive provisions of the zoning regulations, and to abbreviate the requirements for future review. The Board now has the opportunity to help the Community realize the Project that so many have reviewed and expressed support for. The findings requested herein will: A. Solidify the planned development as shown to the Board. B. Confirm the size and location of large open space tracts to be donated to the City. C. Confirm the roads, pedestrian connectivity and pedestrian improvements allocated to the City. D. Allow the Applicant to proceed with permitting in confidence that the plan reviewed to date will be reflective of the plan the Applicant is permitted to build. E. Allow the Applicant certain waivers from the Regulations to ensure the proposed development can be constructed as shown. F. Allow the Applicant to proceed with expedited review of its future applications, given the level of detailed review already provided. G. Allow the Applicant to seek certain waivers at a future date which might not otherwise be available, in order to realize the full benefits of the Project for both the City and the Applicant. H. Allow for the mixing of small scale commercial uses on the first floor of large residential buildings, further to the goals of the community, the Planning Commission and the Applicant, as allowed by the language of the PUD and Master Plan provisions. While this Master Plan is not the final permit to be issued, it will represent a significant step forward and in the right direction, and a mutual commitment between the Applicant and the City to realize the development as envisioned. We are excited to close these permit proceedings and begin the next phase of our Project in filing a Preliminary Plat application for a detailed review, such that we can begin construction in the summer of 2017. We hope that City Staff and the Board are as excited as we are, and we look forward to continued discussion in the Preliminary Plat process. We appreciate the continued attention to this project and the time and effort it has taken by both Staff and the Board. 21 Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C O’BRIEN HOME FARM MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY - PHASE I SCALE: 1” = 100’ 10.12.2016 KEY TRAIL HEAD BUS STOP BIKE ROUTE CITY REC TRAIL PROPERTY TRAILS EXIST. SIDEWALKS NEW SIDEWALKS NEW REC TRAIL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE RECREATION, PARK & OPEN SPACE LAND NOTE: *TRAIL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATIONS.TYPICAL ROAD “A”TYPICAL ROAD “E”TYPICAL ROAD ZONE 1TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 1 ” TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 2 ” Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G O’BRIEN HOME FARM MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY - PHASE I SCALE: 1” = 100’ 09.01.2016 KEY TRAIL HEAD BUS STOP BIKE ROUTE CITY REC TRAIL PROPERTY TRAILS EXIST. SIDEWALKS NEW SIDEWALKS NEW REC TRAIL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE RECREATION, PARK & OPEN SPACE LAND NOTE: *TRAIL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATIONS.TYPICAL ROAD “A”TYPICAL ROAD “E”TYPICAL ROAD ZONE 1TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 1 ” TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 2 ” Park Area Exhibit H Exhibit I SOUTHY BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 NOVEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Britt, Planning Department; B. Gilbert, T. Barritt, H. & T. Riehle, T. Chittenden, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, C. Snyder, R. Rushford, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, S. Dopp, A. Rowe, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, B. Doucevicz, M.E. Jeffries, W. Woolfry, J. Goodwin, I Jewkes 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #8 to #4 and to adjust the other numbering accordingly. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-16-28 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 29.1 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 27.8 acres (lot #1) and 1.29 acres (lot #1-F), 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. McKenzie indicated the piece to be subdivided and sold to the neighbor to allow him greater density on his property. Mr. McKenzie noted this piece is separated from the rest of their property by a wetland. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-16-28. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider request to reopen the hearing for preliminary plat application #SD-16-18 of the Snyder Group, Inc., for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street: 2 Mr. Snyder explained that they had been contacted by Ray Belair who advised that a Master Plan had not been submitted. This is a requirement for this development. Mr. Snyder said they had thought this had been resolved a long time ago. Mr. Miller explained that there was a Master Plan years ago, but it had never been finalized or approved. Mr. Miller also noted receipt of a letter from Daniel Seff saying the application should not be reopened. The Board received a response from City Attorney Lafferty advising them to reopen the hearing. Mr. Conner noted the letter from the City Attorney is privileged information, unless the Board wishes to make it public. Mr. Kochman moved to make the letter from City Attorney Lafferty part of the record. Mr. Miller seconded. Mr. Conner said that typically they would check with the City Attorney as to whether releasing the information would allow an adversary to use the information. Mr. Wilking said he wouldn’t want his attorney’s information released. Mr. Cota said he had questions he would like to ask before releasing the letter. The vote on the motion was 1-5, with all but Mr. Kochman voting against. Mr. Kochman reminded the applicant that once the application is reopened, everything is ‘on the table.” Mr. Snyder said he understood this. Mr. Cota then moved to reopen SD-16-18 of The Snyder Group, Inc., on 6 December 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kochman said he felt there should be an independent review of traffic at that time and consideration of mitigation of hazards at the Swift/Spear intersection. Mr. Parsons noted that issue had been left to Final Plat; it was not being ignored. Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilking had the same recollection. 6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller said the Board would allot an hour to this application, unless it appeared they are near the end. He also noted the application would be continued so the Board could consider in deliberative session whether there is anything more they wish to hear. 3 Mr. Langfeldt noted that the unit count differs from what was proposed in April because more land was added. This was not re-noticed properly. They will work with staff to properly re-notice it. The correct unit count is 458. Mr. Conner noted that this is an optional Master Plan. Mr. Langfeldt asked that the deliberative session be an open session so they can provide clarity. Mr. Kochman said the applicant could not participate in the deliberative session, but he did feel it should be an open session to address transparency. Mr. Langfeldt said they wanted to be sure there is no “misinterpretation” of what they have proposed. Mr. Kochman suggested staff do a report to the Board prior to the deliberative session, and the applicant could look at that. Ms. Britt said this could be done by 15 November. Members voiced no objection to this process. Re: Mixing of uses with a Master Plan: Mr. Langfeldt said they believe they can move uses around within a PUD. They are asking that uses allowed in C-1-LR zoning be allowed in Zone 2 of the Master Plan. He noted that staff feels this request is “premature.” Mr. Kochman said he didn’t believe you can change uses just because there is a PUD. Mr. Langfeldt reviewed the issue of “implication” noting a Supreme Court decision on this. Members then reviewed section 15.03 of the LDRs. The applicant believes the language allows for all uses. Board members did not agree. Re: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Langfeldt said they believe the Master Plan meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and asked that the Board agree with this. They want to put this issue “to rest” so they can deal with “minutia.” Mr. Miller noted there is a specific disagreement regarding front yard coverage on Kennedy Drive. Staff believes that the green appearance on Kennedy Drive should be maintained. Mr. Langfeldt said they are OK with the requirement. Mr. Gill added they are no longer asking to waive the 15-foot green buffer on Kennedy Drive.. They do believe that landscaping with new trees might be better than keeping the existing trees. Mr. Langfeldt said they are not asking to waive front yard coverage, though they might want to ask to allow for something like a patio. Mr. Gill said they issue is off the table because the Board won’t allow commercial uses in this area. Ms. Britt said offices would be allowed but not the uses the applicant had asked for. Mr. Langfeldt said they would like consensus from the Board that they are meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner read from Section 15.07C(2) indicating that the Board’s statement that 4 a plan is ‘consistent’ is sufficient. He said he wouldn’t make that statement about an application the Board has not seen. Mr. Kochman suggested that the Board could say “what you show so far is consistent.” Mr. Conner explained that this is an issue of “level of detail” and the Board’s ability to fully review a future plan. Mr. Gill said they are concerned that things already decided (e.g., paths, green space, etc.) would be re- opened. Mr. Wilking said he understood that the applicant is trying to protect against what might happen if the membership of the Board changed. Ms. Britt said staff is OK saying this particular plan meets with Comprehensive Plan. It is not OK with saying that future plans do. Re: movement of the zoning boundary: Mr. Langfeldt noted that staff feels this is not part of the Master Plan review, but they feel this is the right point to allow for this. Members agreed it is appropriate for this review. Re: innovation and whether the plan meets that requirement: Mr. Langfeldt said they feel there is innovation in such things as layout, housing types, uses, green space, etc. Mr. Conner said there is no question of this plan being innovative. It is. The question is future plans. Mr. Langfeldt said they are using this Master Plan to make development innovative. Mr. Wilking suggested saying the plan “as contemplated” is innovative. The applicant was OK with that statement. Re: Landscaping budget: Mr. Langfeldt said in some zones the budget will be significant. They are not asking for a waiver but are asking the board to say that at a future they can find that landscaping can be put on a different part of the development. Mr. Wilking questioned taking landscaping off site. Mr. Gill said they may not fit 100% of the required trees and shrubs on a different part of the site. Mr. Conner said that historically, the Board has required landscaping to be as close as possible to the development site. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue as the Board can control where landscaping goes. Mr. Kochman wanted the flexibility for the Board to allow landscaping elsewhere on the site where it would look better. Mr. Miller was OK with saying “within the Master Plan.” 5 Re: Choice of landscaping plantings: Mr. Langfeldt said they are asking that when they have a landscaping design the Board could approve plants staff does not now feel are appropriate (e.g., ornamental grasses). They ask to keep things open to consider that. Mr. Conner said the Board has typically said landscaping consists of “trees and shrubs.” Mr. Kochman noted the LDRs include “grasses and ground cover.” He suggested the applicant include them and see what the DRB says. Re: Site plan review: Mr. Langfeldt asked if they can submit a plan with parking on another lot and submit them as “tandem.” Mr. Conner said this could be on one plan or 2 successive plans on the agenda. Mr. Langfeldt said they agree with the rest of the staff comments. Mr. Wilking moved to continue MP-16-01 to 15 November 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. At this point, Ms. Riehle noted there were three City Council members present. She stressed that no city business would be discussed at this meeting. 7. Continued Site Plan application #SD-16-61 of Bill Shearer to amend a previously approved plan for an 8400 sq. ft. building consisting of the following uses: 1) 4100 sq. ft. of auto service and repair, 2) 3300 sq. ft. of wholesale, 3) 1000 sq. ft. of general office. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 32, 45 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Jewkes indicated they had met with the City Arborist. They have removed the black locust trees and replaced them with honey locust and arba vitae. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-16-61 of Bill Shearer. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-27 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) increasing the number of residential units by 58 units to 167 units, 2) incorporating the adjacent “Nadeau” 10.1 acre parcel into the 6 development. The 167 units will consist of the following: 125 single family dwellings and 42 two-family dwelling units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Miller noted receipt of comments from DRB member Mark Behr and from Fire Marshall Terry Francis. Correspondence was also received from neighboring residents. Mr. O’Leary showed a plan of Cider Mill I and identified the access roads. He noted the location of single family and multi-family residences. He then showed the proposal for the additional homes including those in the parcel acquired from the adjacent landowner. There will be no change in the street network. They will go from 109 to 167 units. There is sufficient allowance for these additional units. They have changed to duplexes and carriage homes in order to respond to market trends. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a process to amend a Master Plan. Mr. Conner indicated that a Master Plan can be amended to change collector roads and add homes. The next step would be for the applicant to submit a revised Master Plan. It is within the Board’s purview to approve or disapprove that application. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: #1: Extending the road to the property line for connection to the adjacent property, were it to be developed. Mr. O’Leary said they only issue is a wetland and the setback from the wetland. He felt it was unlikely they could get a permit to extend the road through the wetland if there is no existing plan to develop the adjacent property. They are willing to provide a right-of-way. Mr. Kochman suggested a different route for the road, avoiding the wetland. Mr. Wilking saw no reason to connect to a lot that now has solar panels on it that will be there for 25-30 years. Mr. O’Leary said they could reduce the road to fewer than 200 feet and solve the issue. This would lose 6 units. Mr. Miller said extending the road doesn’t make sense and suggested making the road fewer than 200 feet. #2, 3 and 4: Open space issues: Mr. O’Leary said they did discuss where there could be more open space. He showed potential locations for park/community garden spaces. These could possibly be closer to Cider Mill I which was built before the requirement for open space was in the regulations. They are willing to look at this. #5 & #6: Residential design: 7 Mr. O’Leary said they will provide a variety of housing styles. #7: Lot ratio: Mr. O’Leary said they will look at this. The applicant then addressed comments from Terry Francis. Mr. O’Leary said they will provide an adequate turning radius for fire equipment. They do have a permit from the State to extend the water system. They will also assure that the road is designed not to be a high speed cut-thru. Members then addressed written and oral comments from neighbors. One of the written comments addressed the obstruction of a wildlife corridor. Mr. Miller noted that this is an issue that is dealt with by Act 250, not at the local level. Another comments suggested that Cider Mill I and II were connected “too directly,” and that it would look like “wall to wall” development. This writer also wanted more of a jog in the road. Mr. O’Leary said that road network is similar to what was approved, but instead of 2 90 degree bends, there is a loop, and there is a fairly circuitous route from Hinesburg Road to Dorset St. There are also “neckdowns” at about every intersection. Regarding a question about TDRs, Mr. Conner explained the TDR process. Mr. O’Leary said they have enough TDRs for 109 units and will acquire those needed for the 167 units. Mr. Wolfrey expressed concern that the road will go through a street with family housing. He suggested another route. Mr. Miller noted that the city is committed to “connectivity” between major arteries. Ms. Jeffries said many cars not try to cut through, even though the road is closed off. She felt the road would be used as a “cut thru.” Mr. Miller said the road has already been permitted, but the DRB will try to make it as safe as possible. Mr. Kochman reminded neighbors of their right to testify about traffic concerns at both the DRB and Act 250 hearings. They can also work with the developer to get something they feel is safer. Ms. Dopp expressed concern with the north/south wildlife corridor. Mr. O’Leary said that most of the additional units are within the Village Residential zoning area. They will not be clearing a lot of woods, and the buildings are being placed on open field areas. Another member of the audience suggested pulling back some of the duplexes so the corridor can remain natural. Mr. Barritt said staff has worked hard to preserve wildlife corridors. He felt this proposal squeezes down that corridor. He asked the Board to consider this very carefully. 8 Mr. Riehle noted that a deed requires that the land at the end of the proposed development not be developed. He also expressed concern with the rec path going down into Hinesburg Road where there is a 50 mph speed limit. He didn’t feel biking should be encouraged there. He asked if the developer would consider a berm and indicated the location. Mr. O’Leary said they would gladly consider that. Mr. Chittenden asked if the property touches the Scott property that the city owns. Mr. Conner said it does. He indicated the corner where the 2 properties abut. Mr. Goodwin of the Bike/Ped Committee, said the Committee would like to see more of what is planned. Mr. Miller encouraged the developer to speak with that committee. Mr. O’Leary said they are comfortable going to Master Plan and Preliminary Plat. 9. Minutes of 18 October 2016: Ms. Smith noted that she also recused herself during the hearing on item #10. Mr. Cota then moved to approve the Minutes of 18 October 2016 as amended. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Mr. Kochman said he would like a discussion on affordable housing to take place with the City Council in an open session. Mr. Miller said he felt that is a good idea, but he questioned whether the Board can have such a discussion if it does not relate to an application being heard. Mr. Conner said he would ask the Council if there are any problems with such a discussion. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner noted the city now has a new in-house legal counsel, Andrew Bolduc. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk