Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 02/07/2017
SOUTH BURLINGTONDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 7, 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT – B. Miller, Chair, M. Cota, F. Kochman, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, and M. Behr (remotely) ALSO PRESENT: Evan Langfeldt; Andrew Gill; David Rugh, Esq.; Tom Peterson; Andy Rowe; Ken Braverman; Tim McKenzie; Chris Snyder; Joe Larkin; Richard Flood; Mark Sperry; Pete Judge; Peggy Eastman; Myron Sopher; Scott Homsted; Robert Rushford; Miranda Jonswold; Cathy Frank; Michelle Schwartz; Robert Schwartz; Jamieson Goodwin; Abby Dery; Roger Dickinson; Michael Simoneau; Eric Farrell; Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner; Ray Belair, Administrative Officer; Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No additions, deletions, or changes were made. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued design review application #DR-16-05 of University of Vermont Medical Center for a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive. Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-17-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three (3) lots ranging in size from 7,170 sq. ft. to 185,659 sq. ft., 6 Market Street. The Board discussed the project with the applicant. The public was invited to comment on the application. 6. Continued master plan application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive. Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 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. Mr. Cota moved to continue the hearing to March 7, 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. Mr. Miller opened the hearing. Mr. Cota moved to continue the hearing to March 7, 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six (6) commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road. Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of January 3 & January 17, 2017 Mr. Miller requested a change to the minutes of January 3, 2017. Mr. Cota moved to accept the minutes of January 3, 2017 as amended and the minutes of January 17, 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. , Clerk 2/6/2017 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #DR-16-05 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER—6 SAN REMO DRIVE MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN #DR-16-05 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Design Review application #DR-16-05 of University of Vermont Medical Center for a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 17, and February 7, 2017. The applicant was represented by ____________. 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, University of Vermont Medical Center, seeks a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is AOS Realty. 3. The application was received on December 12, 2016. 4. The applicant submitted renderings of the proposed freestanding sign design totaling two (pages). 5. The applicant submitted additional photos and maps of incidental and freestanding sign locations totaling six (6) pages. 6. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. 7. The applicant is seeking to define the color scheme and materials for a new freestanding sign. Sign Ordinance Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. #DR-16-05 2 (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. The applicant submitted materials showing signage with two (2) colors, green and white. The building nearest the proposed sign is gray and white. The Board finds that these criteria are met. (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. The applicant proposes to use a concrete base and steel columns for support and aluminum sheeting for the visible portion of the sign. The Board finds that all the materials are appropriately suited for outdoor application. Section 8(d) reads in part that the board must consider the following: (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. Only one sign is proposed at this time and the criteria above pertain to situations where there are multiple signs. The Board finds these criteria inapplicable to the present application. If the applicant chooses additional signs they will be required to be of the same colors, fonts, materials, etc. Section 9 addresses standards specifically for freestanding signs. (h) Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. Free-standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right of Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do not provide for a two (2) foot setback from the Right of Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside the R.O.W. line. Free- standing signs in the Dorset Street/City Center District may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than twelve (12) feet, measured from the average finished grade at the base of the sign to the highest point of any part of the sign structure. #DR-16-05 3 The proposed sign is less than 32 square feet in size and less than 12 feet in height. The Board finds this criterion met. Additionally the applicant has submitted information regarding the location and size of three (3) other signs on the property. The Board finds that these signs, which are shown in the submitted materials as being mounted to the building, are considered “incidental” according to the definition of incidental signs in the Sign Ordinance and meet the requirements of incidental signs in Section 12(a) of the Ordinance. DECISION Motion by ____________, seconded by __________, to approve sign design review application #DR-16- 05 of University of Vermont Medical Center, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. The freestanding sign is approved for the use of two (2) colors: green and white. 3. This 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. 4. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to any changes to signs on the property. 5. Any change to the approved sign design will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. 6. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs must be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. 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 __________________ 2017, by #DR-16-05 4 _____________________________________ 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 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Orthopedics6 San Remo Drive ProposedSign1211 = "No Smoking"2 = "Employees Only" 1D2L-11418 ELMHURST RD.ELK GROVE VILLAGEILLINOIS 60007DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ICON IDENTITY SOLUTIONS INC., ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OR DUPLICATION IS NOT PERMITTED. THIS DESIGN IS INTENDED FOR USEBY THE ICON COMPANIES AND THEIR APPROVED VENDORS IN FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY ANDINSTALLATION. ICON MAKES NO CLAIM TO ANY STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL ORFOUNDATION ENGINEERING IF THIS DESIGN IS USED OUTSIDE OF THE ICON COMPANIES ANDTHE APPROVED VENDORS.6'-9 1/2" X 3'-6" ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL/3ELEVATIONR:\ACCOUNTS\F\FLETCHER ALLEN PARTNERS\DIRECTIONAL\FAP0019A 6'9.5''x3'6'' ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL D2L-1.dwg, 7/30/2015 4:44:17 PM, mscott LEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLED LED LEDLEDLEDLEDLED LED LEDLEDLEDLEDLED LED LEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDLEDD MODULESM24 LED4LLL4DLLLDOLLLOELLLE 8 LED MODULESMO8 LED MODULESMO8LEDLEL8LELEDLEDLED MLEDLEDLLEDLEDLLMODLEDLEDDULLEDLEDES8 LED MODULESMO8 LED MODULESMO8LEDLEL8LELEDLEDLED MLEDLEDLLEDLEDLLMODLEDLEDDULLEDLEDLEDLEDES2D2L-11418 ELMHURST RD.ELK GROVE VILLAGEILLINOIS 60007DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ICON IDENTITY SOLUTIONS INC., ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OR DUPLICATION IS NOT PERMITTED. THIS DESIGN IS INTENDED FOR USEBY THE ICON COMPANIES AND THEIR APPROVED VENDORS IN FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY ANDINSTALLATION. ICON MAKES NO CLAIM TO ANY STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL ORFOUNDATION ENGINEERING IF THIS DESIGN IS USED OUTSIDE OF THE ICON COMPANIES ANDTHE APPROVED VENDORS.6'-9 1/2" X 3'-6" ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL/3SECTIONSECTIONFRAMING & LED LAYOUT (ESTIMATE)LED LAYOUT WILL VARY WITHDIFFERENT COPY. REFER TO ARTBEFORE PRODUCTIONADD LEDs TO "SHOULDERS"TO ILLUMINATED SIDE PANELSDETAIL - FACE FLAT LAYOUTBENT SECTIONADD LEDs TO "SHOULDERS"TO ILLUMINATED SIDE PANELSR:\ACCOUNTS\F\FLETCHER ALLEN PARTNERS\DIRECTIONAL\FAP0019A 6'9.5''x3'6'' ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL D2L-1.dwg, 7/30/2015 4:44:23 PM, mscott 3D2L-11418 ELMHURST RD.ELK GROVE VILLAGEILLINOIS 60007DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ICON IDENTITY SOLUTIONS INC., ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OR DUPLICATION IS NOT PERMITTED. THIS DESIGN IS INTENDED FOR USEBY THE ICON COMPANIES AND THEIR APPROVED VENDORS IN FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY ANDINSTALLATION. ICON MAKES NO CLAIM TO ANY STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL ORFOUNDATION ENGINEERING IF THIS DESIGN IS USED OUTSIDE OF THE ICON COMPANIES ANDTHE APPROVED VENDORS.6'-9 1/2" X 3'-6" ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL/3STEP 1: LOWER SIGN ONTO FOUNDATION,SLEEVING TUBE INTO PIPE STUB.STEP 2: FIELD-DRILL MATCHING Ø5/8" HOLESINTO 2" TUBE & SECURE WITH Ø12" BOLTS.ASSEMBLED DETAILINSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONSR:\ACCOUNTS\F\FLETCHER ALLEN PARTNERS\DIRECTIONAL\FAP0019A 6'9.5''x3'6'' ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL D2L-1.dwg, 7/30/2015 4:44:27 PM, mscott 6 San Remo from the southwestProposed new sign will replace this existing sign ProposedSign6 San Remo Drive -Proposed new sign in location of exiting sign. 6 San RemoExisting sign to be replaced by proposed sign in same location. 6 San RemoSign at patient entrance 6 San RemoSigns at employee entrance 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_01_6MarketStreet_SnyderBraverman_FBCDistrict_s ubdivision_sketch_Feb_7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 3, 2017 Plans received: January 13, 2017 6 Market Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-01 Meeting date: February 7, 2017 Owner South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05404 Applicant Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC 4076 Shelburne Rd., Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Property Information Tax Parcel 0450-00002 Form Based Codes District, Transect Zone 5 Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-17-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three (3) lots ranging in size from 7,170 sq. ft. to 185,659 sq. ft., 6 Market Street. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, Director of Planning & Zoning Paul Conner, and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A. Form Based Codes District Dimensional Standards Subdivision of a property is one of the few instances in which the Board is involved in projects that are proposed to occur within the City Center Form Based Codes District. There are no dimensional standards for the Board to consider in the case of this project, because the Transect Zone 5 area of the FBC does not have minimum lot widths or lot sizes. Staff notes that it will be the applicant’s responsibility to assure that the resulting properties are able to be developed in full conformance with these Regulations. B. Parcels The proposed subdivision will create three (3) parcels: one of 185,659 s.f. in size; one of 31,733 s.f., and one of 7,170 s.f. This 7,170 s.f. parcel is a 30’ wide lot/right-of-way to be conveyed to the City of South Burlington for the purpose of extending Mary Street so that it can connect to Market Street. As part of the preliminary / final plat application, the applicant will be expected to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of South Burlington for the 7,170 s.f. parcel. C. Access to parcels Pursuant to Section 8.14(D)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, in Transect Zone 5, curb cuts are prohibited on Market Street and Garden Street and are required to be spaced a minimum of 100’ apart. Lot A can be accessed via the 30’ right-of-way to be conveyed to the City. The Lot is sufficiently long along this right-of-way to meet the 100’ minimum separation from Market Street. Lot B can be accessed via the existing right-of-way located to its east (to become Garden Street when completed). This lot has sufficient frontage along the Garden Street right-of-way in Transect Zone 4 (where curb cuts are permitted) to provide access. D. Official Map The South Burlington Official Map contains two planned streets on the original parcel. On the western side of the original parcel is a planned street connecting Market Street to Mary Street. The Official Map shows approximately half of this planned street on the applicant’s property, with the other half on the property to the west, listed as “Century Partners, LP” on the subdivision plat. The applicant proposes to dedicate a parcel of 30’ in width (and expanding slightly at its northern terminus to account for a turn in Mary Street). This 30’ represents one half of the 60’ right-of-way required for a Support Street pursuant to Section 11.07 of the Land Development Regulations. Mary 3 Street and its extension towards Market Street are listed as a “Support / Neighborhood Street” in the City Center Form Based Code – Primary & Secondary Streets & Block Standard Applicability map in the Land Development Regulations. Staff considers that the dedication of this 30’ right-of-way complies with the Official Map and Land Development Regulations. In the center of the original parcel is a planned street connecting Market Street to the property to the north and eventually to Williston Road. At this time, the applicant has not proposed to dedicate this planned road. Staff is comfortable with not subdividing this second street right-of-way at this time as the property does have access to a street on its eastern side and because the applicant has indicated that they only intend to develop Lot A with a building at this time. Staff recommends, however, that a condition be attached to the preliminary and final plat of this subdivision that no approvals for buildings on any portion of Lot B be issued until the planned street shown on the Official Map is subdivided and offered to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. 1. Staff recommends the Board provide feedback to the applicant regarding access in accordance with the Official Map. E. Determination of Street Types Pursuant Section 11.03(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the Development Review Board shall determine the applicable Street Type. Section 11.03(B)(2) states that “Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway on the Official Map shall be the applicable street type for the purposes of these regulations.” Pursuant to the City Center Form Based Code – Primary & Secondary Streets & Block Standard Applicability map, Market Street has its own specific “Market Street” designation, and Mary Street from Market Street to Williston Road is listed as “Neighborhood / Support Street.” As the Mary Street section includes two street types, the Board is responsible for determining the final street type. Pursuant to Section 8.14(D)(2), of these two options, only “Support Street” is eligible in the T5 District. Staff therefore recommends that the Board assign the “Support Street” type for the section of road in question, from Market Street to the existing Mary Street. 2. Staff recommends the Board inform the applicant that “Support Street” is the street type available to them for the extension of Mary Street to Market Street. F. Street Construction The applicant has requested that the Board make a finding related to construction that accounts for the somewhat unusual circumstances that exist in this case, where only one-half of the planned 60’ right-of- way is available to be provided to the City at this time by the applicant. Section 8.04(A)(2) of the LDRs requires that “Where a building is proposed to be located on a lot that is adjacent to a new or extended street, such street shall be constructed by the applicant pursuant to Article 15 and in accordance with the requirements of Article 11, Street Typologies.” 4 Further, Section 11.03(A) states that “Where a proposed street is required, it shall be constructed in conformance with the applicable street type standards.” In this instance, the applicant is seeking the Board’s approval to comply with these standards in a phased manner. Under this scenario, the applicant would have the option to construct a type of driveway from Market Street, through the street right-of-way proposed in this application, to the point of a curb cut onto the subject property. If the applicant elected to take this option, they would be required to provide funding to the City of South Burlington for the full amount to construct their half of a Support Street from Market Street to Mary Street. The City would then be able to make use of this funding to construct the street in compliance with these Regulations at a time when it has control of the full 60’ right-of-way. Staff supports the Board’s granting of this option. By doing so, it would allow for Lot A to be developed using the 30’ half-right-of-way while providing sufficient space for fire truck access and egress. Staff and the applicant would work together prior to the submission of a preliminary/final plat application to determine the amount and form of this funding, should the Board concur with this approach. The funding amount would be based on the construction costs of all relevant elements of their half of a Support Street. 3. Staff recommends the Board provide feedback to the applicant regarding the option to have access to Lot A via a driveway in the short term and provide funding to the City for construction of its portion of the Market to Mary Street connection. G. Criteria for Review of Subdivisions Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations contains a list of criteria by which subdivisions should be reviewed. These criteria deal with such issues as utilities, open space, and wetlands. There is no development (no new utilities, buildings, etc.) proposed in conjunction with this application, only the subdivision of land into three (3) parcels. Therefore staff considers that the Board need only gain assurance that the resulting properties will each be able to access utilities and confirmation of any wetlands on the lot to be dedicated to the City. Staff recommends these both be addressed at the preliminary/final Plat stage of the review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer NOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCH INCLUDINGTHE USE OFTHE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."CORPORATE CIRCLE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTYCORP.,PROPERTY PLAT." BY WEBSTER-MARTIN, INC., DATED SEPT. 1981, LAST REVISED 5-27-92, ASRECORDED IN SLIDE 248 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.B. "ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, CENTURY PARTNERS, 100 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT." BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DATED DECEMBER 9, 1997, LAST REVISED11/26/07, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 509 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOUTH BURLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL, 10 MARKETSTREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. " BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED MAY19, 2004, LAST REVISED 12-17-04 AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 447 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTONLAND RECORDS.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN OCTOBER,2016,3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER, 2016. THE METHODS ANDTHERESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM PRECISION REQUIREMENTS FORURBAN SURVEYS.5. MONUMENTATIONFOUNDISASNOTEDONPLAN. IRONPIPESSETARE1"DIAMETERWITH A PLASTICCAP.6. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR MARKET STREET OF 80 FEET IS BASED ON A DEED RECORDED INVOL. 687, PAGE 143.7. THEREAREEXISTINGSANITARYANDSTORMSEWERPIPESCROSSINGLOTSA&BASWELL AS THEPARCEL TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY. NO RECORD ALLOWING THESE PIPELINES WAS FOUND INTHE CITY LAND RECORDS. SOME OF THESE LINES ARE PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED DURING THEDEVELOPMENT OF LOTS A & B, AT WHICH TIME EASEMENTS OVER THEM WILL BE CONVEYEDTO THEAPPROPRIATE PARTIES.MAGNETICSOUTH BURLINGTONSCHOOL DISTRICTN/FVOL. 39, PG. 661DOUGLAS HUDSONN/FVOL. 1017, PG. 181 MARY STREET VOL.78,PAGE235 THIRTY THREE MARYSTREET LLCN/FVOL. 750, PG. 585CENTURY PARTNERS, LPN/FVOL. 360, PG. 410POON TRUST, LLC.N/FVOL. 780, PG. 728DORSET SQUAREASSOCIATESN/FVOL. 194, PG. 77VOL. 194, PG. 80VOL. 194, PG. 82VOL. 194, PG 90VOL. 266, PG. 120SOUTH BURLINGTON CITYCENTER, LLC.N/FVOL. 853, PG. 222MARKETSTREETVOL.687,PAGE143(FORMERLYKNOWNASCORPORATEWAY)CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTONN/FVOL. 697, PG. 402CITYOFSOUTHBURLINGTONN/FVOL.176,PG.494MARKETSTREETVOL.288,PAGE1VOL.288,PAGE4APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 30' WIDE MINIMUM WIDTHEASEMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FORPEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CORPORATE WAY(AKA MARKET STREET) TO THE CENTRAL SCHOOL AS SHOWN ONTHE PLAN REFERENCED IN NOTE 1A ABOVE AND ASREFERENCED IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF A DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANYAND THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, AS RECORDED IN VOL.281, PGS. 550-555.CMF0.3' AGCMF0.35' AGCMF0.2' AGCMFFLUSH1/2" IPF1.2' AG149.81'N71°04'02"W84.37' S18°49'25"W274.83'S73°25'30"E574.98'S73°23'45"ES73°33'10"E431.28'S47°59'34"W27.17'N89°12'49"W559.12'N46°25'12"W183.47'S03°40'17"W 50.04'N73°20'23"W4.06'S78°17'36"WAREA DEPICTED AS "MARY STREET TURNAROUND"ON THE PLAN REFERENCED IN NOTE 1A ON THISPLAT. NO RECORD WAS DISCOVERED GRANTINGAN EASEMENT FOR THIS AREA.60'11.77'40.00'S03°39'15"W71.11' N18°57'29"E S03°40'17"W 136.47'TYPICAL EXISTINGUTILITY VAULTEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTOF SCHOOL DRIVEWAY80'30'TYPICAL EXISTINGUTILITY VAULTTYPICAL 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT TOGREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION,AS RECORDED IN VOL. 207, PAGE 50910'L = 26.79'R=340.00'CMSPARCEL TO BE CONVEYED TO CITYOF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR THEFUTURE EXTENSION OF MARYSTREET (7,170 SF)CMS60'CMSLOT A31,733 SFLOT B185,659 SFL = 193.41'R = 340.00'L=107.09'R = 340.00'20.94'60.12'N 25°23'47"E69.40'N 05°25'00"EConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONSSHOULD ONLYBEUSED FORTHE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINAL LOCAL REVIEWPRELIMINARYSKETCH/CONCEPTSOUTH BURLINGTONCITY CENTER, LLCLANDS OFMARKET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT15143KMR-KMR / DLHDJG/ABR10-14-16sht. no.scaledatecheckeddrawndesignsurveyproject no.RECORD DRAWINGCONSTRUCTIONACT 250 REVIEWdescriptiondatebyPL-1AS NOTEDPROJECTSITERICK MARCOTTECENTRAL SCHOOLWILLISTONROADWHITESTREETHINESBURGROAD LOCATION PLANNTSN/FLEGENDTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS PLAT IS BASEDON INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PERTINENTDEEDS AND/OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS, ANDMARKERS EVIDENT ON THE PROPERTY, ANDCONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA§1403. DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____, 2017__________________________PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDNOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADELANDOWNERSOUTHBURLINGTONCITYCENTER,LLCC/O SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO.P.O. BOX 2204SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05407DEED REFERENCE:VOL. 853, PAGE 222TAX MAP PARCEL:0450-00002IPFIPSAGBGSUBDIVISIONPLATCMFAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE____ DAY OF _______________, 2017SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAIDRESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ___________ 2017 BY(CLERK OR CHAIRMAN)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. __________________ , 2017ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY CLERK__ M., AND RECORDED IN SLIDE# ________RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT________ O'CLOCKCITY CLERK'S OFFICECONCRETE MONUMENT TO BE SETCMSCALCULATED POINT NO MARKER SETMARYSTREET 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: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Officer SUBJECT: MP-16-03 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: February 7, 2017 Master plan application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Board has begun deliberating on this application and has chosen to keep the hearing open, which allows them to accept new information in a public meeting from the applicant and staff in the event that questions arise during the deliberation process. At this time there is no additional information (staff comments, updated plans, etc.) to share. 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: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: MP-16-01 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: February 7, 2017 Development Review Board meeting 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 applicant has submitted a different and new application (#MP-16-03) for a project on the same parcel. #MP-16-01 is therefore on hold as the applicant is choosing at this time to pursue #MP-16-03 instead. 1. Staff recommends the Board continue #MP-16-01 to a future meeting date. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamily_prelim_Feb_ 7_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 3, 2017 Application received: December 23, 2016 255 KENNEDY DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-37 Meeting date: February 7, 2017 Owners/Applicants O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator (802) 658-5000 Project Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Tax Parcels 1260-0200 and 0970-00255 R-12 and C1-LR Zoning Districts ~39 acres total Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_Feb_7_2017.docx 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. COMMENTS The applicant currently has a Master Plan application before the Board for the same project area. The Board has not yet closed that hearing and rendered a decision, which would include decisions and conditions related to the applicant’s waiver and findings requests. Not knowing the final disposition of those waivers and findings, staff (Ray Belair, Administrative Officer, and Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner) have chosen in these comments to focus on bigger picture issues rather than go through each standard and requirement in the Land Development Regulations that pertains to preliminary plat applications. Closer attention will be given to those factors in future staff comments once there is a Master Plan decision. A) Planned Unit Development Purpose Section 15.01 of the Land Development Regulations states that 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.” Staff considers that the Board should bear this purpose statement in mind as it reviews the project, so that it can make a determination about whether the project meets the purpose of the PUD section of the LDRs. 1. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant explain how the proposed project fits within the purpose of Section 15.01. B) Phasing The applicant is proposing 118 units of housing through a combination of single and two-family units, a park and open spaces with a network of paths, and six (6) streets. The applicant has provided some information on the phasing of roadways, but has not provided details on when the streets, park, and path network will be constructed. For example, a phasing plan for the path network could be that prior to the 40th housing unit receiving a zoning permit the networks of paths must be constructed. Staff considers details on the phasing of roadways to be especially important to ensure that proper bonding is secured that would make it possible for street networks to be completed and to avoid dead end streets. In the case of the park and open space, staff considers that the Board should know at what point in the project those amenities will be provided to ensure adequate pedestrian connectivity and access to park space. 2. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide a phasing plan for the park and path network. C) Guest Parking for Single Family House Lots Streets C, D, and F are proposed to be 20 feet wide; however, five (5) feet of the paved surface will be an integrated sidewalk (i.e. no curb, sidewalk flush with the roadway). The Fire Department has requested there be no on street parking along those proposed streets to ensure fire access. Staff considers that this CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_Feb_7_2017.docx 3 raises the issue of where guests to the 35 single family houses on those streets will park. Since the Board’s potential rejection of this street scheme—integrated sidewalk without on street parking—could have significant impacts on the project’s street design and location of housing units, staff considers that the Board should consider this design element early on in the review process. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss the street design and guest parking for proposed streets C, D, and F with the applicant. D) Staging An issue staff has dealt with on other development projects is the staging of construction equipment, earth/dirt that is being stored onsite, etc. Staff considers that because of the hilly topography of this site the issue of where materials and earth will be stored is particularly important due to the possibility of runoff. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update their plans to provide information on the staging of materials, including earth/dirt, throughout the lifecycle of the project, particularly addressing the location of staging and any mitigation measures that will be taken to keep materials in those locations. E) Traffic Study During the Master Plan review process the Board expressed concern regarding the traffic impact study and indicated a technical review of the study could be in order. Staff considers that the Board should decide whether it wants to pursue a technical review, so that process can be started and the assessment received in a timely fashion. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether it wants to invoke technical review to have the traffic impact study reviewed by a 3rd party. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Footprint Number Plans Available Plan Height (Minimum and Maximum Feet) Pre‐ Building Grade Number of Stories Facing the Street Front Yard to Structure Front Yard to Garage Second Front Yard (If Corner Lot) Side Yard Rear Yard to External Property Border Rear Yard to Internal Property Border Or Unit 1 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 14' 15' >10' 368' 26' 2 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 322' 26' 3 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 10' 12' >10' 310' 29' 4 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 10' 12' >10' 285' 29' 5 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 10' 11' >10' 277' 29' 6 SF2 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 30' 7 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 31' 8 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 31' 9 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 11' 19' >10' 33' 10 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 13' 20' >10' 48' 11 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 80' 12 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 19' 20' >10' 89' 13 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 17' 20' >10' 115' 14 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 72' 15 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 47' 16 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 33' 17 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 31' 18 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 18' >10' 31' 19 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 17' 18' >10' 32' 20 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 12' 16' >10' 72' 21 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 18' 26' >10' 70' N.A. 22 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 6' 17' >10' 27' 27' 23 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 42' 42' 24 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 10' 20' >10' 71' 25 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 11' 20' >10' 56' 26 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 41' 27 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 28' 28 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 11' 20' >10' 26' 29 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 9' 11' >10' 26' 30 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 9' 11' >10' 28' 31 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 9' 11' >10' 41' 32 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 10' 12' >10' 57' 33 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 10' 12' >10' 71' 34 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 19' 21' >10' 165' 12' 35 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 16' 17' >10' 197' 17' 36 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 19' >10' 210' 16' 37 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 240' 34' 38 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 16' 23' >10' 251' 30' 39 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 266' 43' 40 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 265' 43' 41 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 264' 43' 42 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 11' 19' >10' 263' 43' 43 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 12' 20' >10' 262' 36' 44 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 11' 19' >10' 69' 29' 45 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 10' 18' >10' 70' 27' 46 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 9' 12' >10' 63' 13' 47 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 12' 13' >10' 63' 14' 48 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 19' >10' 71' 27' 49 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 12' 12' >10' 85' 44' 50 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 17' 26' >10' 272' 42' 51 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 15' 23' >10' 254' 30' 52 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 6' 14' >10' 249' 31' 53 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 6' 14' >10' 247' 33' 54 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 6' 14' >10' 247' 34' 55 SF2 20‐25' 2 Stories 6' 15' >10' 246' 33' 56 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 34' 57 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 35' 58 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 36' 59 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 37' 60 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 38' 61 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 17' 19' >10' 39' 62 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 17' 19' >10' 36' 63 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 17' 19' >10' 26' 64 SF1 20‐32 1‐2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 20' 65 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 24' 66 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 21' 67 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 22' 68 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 27' 69 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 35' 70 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 18' 20' >10' 42' 71 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 16' 18' >10' 43' 72 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 15' 15' >10' 37' 73 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 27' 74 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 19' 75 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 19' 76 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 20' 77 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 30' 78 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 12' 15' >10' 33' 79 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 15' >10' 42' 80 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 12' 15' >10' 44' 81 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 50' 82 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 12' 15' >10' 51' 83 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 52' 84 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 12' 15' >10' 52' 85 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 51' 86 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 12' 15' >10' 50' 87 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 54' 88 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 15' >10' 54' 89 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 54' 90 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 15' >10' 53' 91 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 49' 92 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 15' >10' 48' 93 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 40' 94 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 37' 95 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 28' 96 DUP2 30‐32' 3 Stories 11' 14' >10' 26' 97 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 30' 30' 98 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 14' >10' 30' 30' 99 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 31' 31' 100 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 33' 33' 101 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 34' 34' 102 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 34' 34' 103 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 16' 17' >10' 36' 36' 104 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 16' 17' >10' 42' 42' 105 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 14' 16' >10' 49' 49' 106 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 14' 15' >10' 58' 58' 107 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 67' 67' 108 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 13' 15' >10' 77' 77' 109 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 89' 89' 110 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 102' 102' 111 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 14' >10' 116' 116' 112 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 12' 13' >10' 131' 131' 113 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 148' 148' 114 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 221' 221' 115 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 244' 244' 116 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 273' 273' 117 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 296' 296' 118 DUP1 30‐32 2 Stories 11' 13' >10' 323' 323' AABB 1 inch = 100 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE100 050100200 400Pavement Marking &Traffic Signage Plan11" = 100'CBADateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-29-2016RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VTDDP:\2014\14145\dwg\14145-01 - traffic control.dwg, 11/29/2016 12:36:36PM, 1:1 Kennedy DriveLeft-Turn Lane Planat New City Road 'B'21" = 30'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey Project No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-4-16RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VT1 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120PAVEMENT MARKING LEGENDNEW DOUBLE 4" SOLID YELLOW LINEDC B NEW CROSSWALK MARKINGNEW 4" SOLID WHITE LINENEW 24" SOLID WHITE STOPBARA E NEW LETTER OR SYMBOLFNEW 4" DOTTED WHITE LINEGNEW 4" DASHED WHITE LINEHINEW 6" SOLID YELLOW LINENEW 4" SOLID YELLOW LINE3 ???GZJ?.HQQHG\'UGZJ 30 Kennedy Drive &New City Road 'B'Traffic Signal Plan31" = 20'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey Project No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-4-16RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VT9SIGNAL HEADS682RYGLED1RYGLEDTRAFFIC SIGNAL LEGEND4DZ - 1VIDEO DETECTION ZONE TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADJUNCTION BOXWIRED CONDUITSIGNAL CONTROLLERMAST ARM POLECONDUIT SLEEVECAMERA FOR VIDEODETECTION101 inch = 20 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE20 0 10 20 40 803 ???GZJ?6LJQDO3ODQGZJ 30 O’BRIEN HOME FARM PUD - PHASE 1 South Burlington, VT Traffic Impact Assessment August 8, 2016 1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines Phase 1 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm planned unit development (the Project). Figure 1 illustrates the proposed project location and its relationship to the adjacent street network. The project itself will include a mix of 417 residential units plus a commercial component consisting of retail, office and/or lodging. Residential units are proposed in all three zones shown in Figure 1. The commercial component, however, would be limited to just Zone 2. Figure 1 - O’Brien Home Farm - Phase 1 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Access to the Project will be provided via Eldredge St, an existing city street linking Hinesburg Road with Kennedy Drive. Eldredge St links both Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive, and presently serves 47 residential condominium units (“Stonington Circle”) and 70 apartment units (“Lancaster”). Two new streets, presently designated New City Roads “A” and “E”, will extend from Eldredge St easterly to connect with New City Road “B”, which will extend south from a signalized intersection with Kennedy Dr located 1,000 ft west of Kimball Ave. The resulting street network will link the existing and proposed development in this immediate area, and will provide alternate travel routes so as to minimize traffic impacts on both Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr. As outlined in the following sections, this TIA concludes that future traffic congestion and safety conditions will continue to meet City and State standards, and that this Project will not create an adverse impact on those conditions. 2.0 No-Build Traffic Volumes Kennedy Dr is a city street and its functional classification is an urban minor arterial. Kennedy Dr is also part of the National Highway System. Current annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on Kennedy Dr equal 12,500± vehicles per day (vpd) east of Hinesburg Rd. Hinesburg Rd is a state highway (VT Route 116), and its functional classification is an urban principal arterial. Current annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on Hinesburg Rd equal 8,600± vehicles per day (vpd) south of Kennedy Dr. For the purpose of this traffic impact assessment (TIA), this Project is anticipated to be constructed during the 2017-2020 time period. The following analyses incorporate the standard five-year projection from completion of construction, for this Project 2025, to examine potential traffic impacts. In South Burlington, the afternoon peak hour period experiences the highest traffic volumes and is the time period during which the design hour volume (DHV) generally occurs. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly traffic volume that occurs in a given year, and is used in the design of highways and intersections to determine existing and future traffic congestion conditions. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were obtained from turning movement counts performed by VTrans at Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd on August 4, 2015 and at Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave on June 22 & 23, 2015. This office also performed turning movement counts at the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St/Hayes Ave and Kennedy Dr/Eldredge St intersections in February 2015. Copies of the latter counts are enclosed as Appendix A. DHV adjustment factors for the foregoing turning movement counts were obtained from continuous count stations (CTC) D040, located on US 7 in Colchester; D091, located on I-89 in South Burlington; and D530, located on VT 289 in Essex. This was necessary as the CTC’s closer to this Project, including D099, located on I-189 in South Burlington and D061, located on US 2 in Williston; were not operational and no data was available for the days on which the turning movement counts were performed. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Background traffic growth factors to the year 2025 were estimated using VTrans traffic projections1. VTrans’ most recent projections are that background traffic volumes will grow by 3% from 2015 to 2020 and by 6% from 2015 to 2025. Those growth rates have been used in this TIA to include anticipated local growth. Detailed DHV calculations are enclosed as Appendix B. Figures 2 and 3 on the following pages present the projected year 2025 No-Build AM and PM peak hour volumes at the key intersections adjacent to this Project. 3.0 Project-Generated Trips The additional new trip generation of this Project was estimated using trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the proposed land-use categories. With this Project being constructed in discrete “zones” or construction phases, the trip generation has been estimated for each zone. The proposed construction phasing for this Project will start with Zone 1; followed by Zone 3. Zone 2 would be constructed last. Table 1 shows the resulting estimated average weekday vehicular trip generation. Table 1 - Project-Generated Vehicle Trips Zone Proposed Land-Use ITE Land-Use Avg. Weekday1 AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 1 27 single family residential units 210 257 5 15 20 20 12 32 2 300 apartment units 55,000 sf commercial/office 220 varies 1,942 1,486 3,428 30 112 142 121 22 143 151 134 285 119 32 151 64 100 164 183 132 315 3 44 condominium units 230 315 5 22 27 21 10 31 6 32 single family residential units 14 condominium residential units 210 230 305 116 421 6 2 8 18 9 27 24 11 35 24 8 32 14 4 18 38 12 50 Total 4,421 160 207 367 224 204 428 1 vehicle trip ends per day (vte/day) 2 vehicle trip ends per hour (vte/hr) 1 Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis Based on 2014 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, March 2015 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 2 - 2025 No-Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 147 272 96 12 11 22 Kennedy Dr 99 36 1 3 Kennedy Dr610481670443 345 258 182 71 0 0324 395 176 293 106 0 0 173 2 167 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 75099 Hayes Ave 27 26 Eldredge St41 21 3 43 522 6 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 3 - 2025 No-Build PM Peak Hour Volumes (DHV) Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 158 217 74 14315 Kennedy Dr 228 154 20 11 Kennedy Dr568735 697 834 622 831 378 358 117 118 14 00 0224 130 170 365 69 0 11 0 0 459 16 311 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 37 394 21 Hayes Ave 15 9 Eldredge St01 31 1 31 580 7 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5Consulting Engineers, Inc. The above trips for the commercial/office space in Zone 2 was estimated using a 50/50 split of general office (#710) and medical office (#720) space. This was done to develop a trip generation estimate that could include other complementary commercial uses, e.g. small retail stores and food establishments, and provide a measure of flexibility to the commercial portion of this PUD. Substituting a 135 unit hotel (#310) for the entire 55,000 sf of commercial/office space would reduce the estimated number of daily and peak hour trips from what is shown in Table 1. For the purpose of this TIA, the above trip generation estimates have not been adjusted to reflect alternate travel modes (i.e. transit, walking and biking), internal capture of multiple destination trips or pass-by trips. Those adjustments can be incorporated into this Project’s trip generation estimates in the future as the proposed commercial uses become better defined and/or additional travel mode data becomes available. The directional patterns of the peak hour trips were estimated using South Burlington journey to work data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). This data provides a town-by-town breakdown of where South Burlington residents travel to work (used to estimate residential trip patterns), and of where South Burlington and out-of-town residents travel from to work in South Burlington (used to estimate non- residential trip patterns). An analysis of this data indicates that the predominant travel patterns are to the north and west of this Project’s location. Almost all community facilities (schools, shopping, etc.) used by residents in this area of South Burlington are also located to the north and west of the Project. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the resulting directional distributions of new Project-generated peak hour trips. Detailed trip generation calculations are enclosed as Appendix C. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the resulting estimated 2025 Build morning and afternoon peak hour volumes at the key intersections adjacent to this Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 4 - Project-Generated AM Peak Hour Trips Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 547 Kennedy Dr 54 Kennedy Dr4947 95 95 4 030 21 4 02 94 41 21 18 14 0 4 101 47 20 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 10 Hayes Ave 33 Eldredge St00 20 16 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 5 - Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trips Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 19 59 Kennedy Dr 59 Kennedy Dr5151 99 116 3 028 33 18 09 100 56 23 11 10 0 3 112 48 23 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 38 Hayes Ave 21 Eldredge St00 20 22 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 6 - 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 147 277 143 12 11 22 Kennedy Dr 99 90 1 3 Kennedy Dr659528674443 375 279 186 71 94 41 345 395 194 307 106 101 47 193 2 167 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 750919 Hayes Ave 27 59 Eldredge St41 21 23 43 522 22 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 9Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 7 - 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Volumes (DHV) Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 158 236 133 14315 Kennedy Dr 228 213 20 11 Kennedy Dr619786 796 950 625 831 406 391 135 118 23 0 100 56 247 130 181 375 69 0 14 112 48 482 16 311 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 37 394 59 Hayes Ave 15 30 Eldredge St01 31 21 31 580 29 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 10Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4.0 Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion conditions are identified by “levels of service”, commonly referred to as “LOS”. The ranges are A to F; where A represents essentially free flow (no congestion), C represents average congestion, and F represents severe congestion. At signalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the overall delay experienced by all turning and through movements. At unsignalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the minor-street approach having the lowest LOS. The level of service criteria for intersections is shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Level of Service/Delay Criteria2 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) Signalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized A B C 10 20 35 10 15 25 D E F 55 80 >80 35 50 >50 In Vermont, LOS C represents the desired design standard for roadways and signalized intersections3. At two- way stop controlled (unsignalized) intersections having greater than 100 vph approach volume on a single-lane side street approach or greater than 150 vph approach volume on a two-lane side street approach, the VTrans level of service policy establishes LOS D as the desired design standard on the minor street approach(s). There is no level of service standard for unsignalized intersections not meeting the above side street volume thresholds. Reduced levels of service are acceptable in densely settled areas where volume/capacity ratios remain below 1.0 and/or the improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can also be used to help mitigate levels of service not meeting the foregoing standards. Section 15.12.F of the City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations require that signalized intersections in the vicinity of a development have an overall level of service D or better, with the through movements on the major roadways also experiencing level of service D or better at full build-out. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the year 2025 “No-Build” and “Build” scenarios. This permits the incremental impact of this Project on future traffic congestion conditions to be determined by comparing the results of the two sets of analyses. Table 3 presents the results of those analyses. Detailed capacity analysis results for each intersection are enclosed as Appendices D-G. 2 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 3 Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 11 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 3 - Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour (DHV) No-Build Build No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH Kennedy Dr WB RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd NB TH Hinesburg Rd NB RT Hinesburg Rd SB LT Hinesburg Rd SB TH Hinesburg Rd SB RT OVERALL D C A D C A D C A D D A C 46 27 2 47 28 0 44 34 4 42 44 4 28 0.50 0.51 0.19 0.43 0.46 0.05 0.61 0.59 0.15 0.44 0.72 0.22 117' 248' 39' 102' 201' 0' 177' 260' 36' 109' 275' 45' D C A D C A D D A D D A C 47 28 2 49 30 2 46 39 4 47 45 4 30 0.50 0.56 0.20 0.46 0.52 0.11 0.65 0.69 0.16 0.60 0.73 0.22 117' 272' 39' 102' 222' 25' 200' 274' 36' 165' 282' 45' E C A D C A E E A D D A D 66 27 3 52 35 3 63 58 2 51 43 8 37 0.81 0.47 0.14 0.56 0.69 0.20 0.74 0.84 0.10 0.44 0.59 0.23 314' 236' 34' 145' 338' 45' 244' 436' 19' 101' 225' 74' E C A D D A E E A E D A D 70 29 3 52 37 5 70 60 2 70 43 8 39 0.83 0.53 0.16 0.56 0.76 0.27 0.79 0.86 0.10 0.73 0.61 0.23 314' 260' 37' 145' 396' 74' 264' 452' 19' 208' 246' 74' Kennedy Drive/New Road “B” Kennedy Dr EB TH/RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH New City Road “B” NB LT New City Road “B” NB RT OVERALL A D A D A A 9 46 1 40 7 9 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.43 0.11 196' 56' 5' 109' 26' A C A D A A 10 35 5 40 6 10 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.46 0.11 192' 37' 164' 118' 26' Kennedy Drive/Kimball Ave Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH/RT Kimball Ave NB LT/TH Kimball Ave NB RT Bayberry Ln SB LT/TH/RT OVERALL C C A D B D A C C 24 26 6 43 13 48 2 23 24 0.00 0.35 0.49 0.81 0.14 0.69 0.20 0.16 2' 146' 106' 392' 117' 199' 26' 48' B C B D B D A C C 19 30 13 44 13 51 2 23 26 0.00 0.39 0.52 0.81 0.16 0.73 0.20 0.16 1' 172' 195' 392' 125' 232' 28' 48' D C A E C D A A C 38 32 7 59 25 44 5 8 28 0.13 0.49 0.44 0.68 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.05 36' 168' 84' 188' 163' 490' 84' 21' C C B E C D A A C 35 26 13 60 26 49 5 8 29 0.13 0.55 0.48 0.69 0.38 0.91 0.34 0.05 34' 182' 161' 188' 178' 524' 90' 21' Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St Hayes Ave EB LT/TH/RT Eldredge St WB LT/TH/RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd SB LT D B A A 26 14 9 9 0.23 0.07 0.04 0.01 23' 5' 3' 0' D C A A 29 21 9 9 0.26 0.27 0.04 0.02 25' 28' 3' 3' C B A A 17 15 9 9 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.02 13' 3' 3' 5' C C A A 20 24 8 9 0.16 0.22 0.03 0.06 15' 20' 3' 5' The following paragraphs discuss future traffic congestion conditions and traffic control at each intersection: »Kennedy Dr & Hinesburg Rd - This intersection was improved and new traffic signals installed in 2007 as part of the Kennedy Dr reconstruction project. During the AM peak hour period, future levels of service will remain at LOS C or better for the Kennedy Dr eastbound and westbound through movements and all right- turn movements. Left-turns and Hinesburg Rd through movements will continue to experience LOS D. Existing and future levels of service drop to LOS D and E for most movements during the pm peak hour period without this Project due to generally higher traffic volumes. This causes the overall rating to drop to LOS D during the pm peak hour period. Additional traffic from this Project will cause the westbound through movement to cross the LOS C/D threshold (+2 sec/veh). The greatest PM peak hour impact will be experienced in the southbound left-turn lane, which will drop to LOS E with 19 sec/veh increased delay. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 12 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The traffic signal at this intersection is timed to favor east-west traffic flow on Kennedy Dr, and that is reflected in the levels of service and delays. Additionally, while the use of protected left-turn and pedestrian signal phasing at the signalized intersections at this and the other signalized intersections along the Kennedy Dr corridor creates longer delays and queues, it more importantly improves traffic safety for both vehicular traffic and pedestrians. This traffic signal also currently operates in the coordinated mode with the one at Timberlane Dr to the west, but not with Kimball Ave to the east. Overall, given the urban built-up environment of the surrounding area, and the multiple through and turning lanes that already exist, this intersection’s existing geometry cannot easily be further improved. Thus, it is our opinion that the LOS D overall rating during the PM peak hour period at this intersection qualifies for reduced LOS criteria as outlined in VTrans’ level of service policy. »Hinesburg Rd & Eldredge Rd/Hayes Ave - This intersection was improved with northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Hinesburg Rd in the early 2000's as part of the construction of Eldredge Rd and the existing O’Brien Home Farm development. It will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under two-way stop control with the addition of this Project. »Kennedy Dr & Eldredge Rd - This right-turn only intersection will see little additional traffic from this Project; largely due to the new Kennedy Dr/New City Road “B” intersection proposed to the east. We observed several left-turn movements entering and exiting Eldredge Rd at this location during the traffic counts for this TIA. It is anticipated that the New City Road “B” intersection on Kennedy Dr will intercept and provide a better route for westbound left-turns on Kennedy Dr desiring to enter the O’Brien Home Farm development. »Kennedy Dr & New City Road “B” - This new intersection is proposed to be constructed concurrently with construction of Zone 2, and will be signalized as part of its initial construction. For the purpose of the this TIA, it has been anticipated that the new traffic signal will operate in the coordinated mode with the Kimball Ave signal. A new exclusive left-turn lane will be needed in the westbound direction to separate left-turning traffic entering this Project from through traffic. A concept sketch showing the new westbound left-turn lane is enclosed as Appendix G. This intersection’s proposed location exceeds the maximum requirements of Section 15.12.F - Table 15-2 of the City’s Land Development Regulations with regard to separation from other nearby signalized intersections. This Project also satisfies the overall intersection LOS D requirement at this location. Additionally, LOS D is being maintained in all major street through lanes at this and the other major signalized intersections examined in this TIA. »Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave/Bayberry Ln - This intersection was also improved and new traffic signals installed in 2007 as part of the Kennedy Dr reconstruction project. It will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with minimal impacts from this Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 13 Consulting Engineers, Inc. With Zone 2 being the last phase to be constructed, New City Roads “A”and “E” in Zone 3 will only connect to Eldredge St until such time as New City Road “B” is completed. This necessitated performing additional capacity analyses to determine the temporary impact of the proposed development in Zones 1 and 3 on the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd and the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St intersections until such time as the New City Road “B” is completed. The results of those analyses are shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Partial-Build Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH Kennedy Dr WB RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd NB TH Hinesburg Rd NB RT Hinesburg Rd SB LT Hinesburg Rd SB TH Hinesburg Rd SB RT OVERALL D C A D C A D C A D D A C 46 29 2 51 29 0 46 34 4 42 45 4 30 0.50 0.57 0.21 0.51 0.48 0.05 0.66 0.61 0.15 0.44 0.73 0.22 117' 248' 40' 126' 201' 0' 213' 279' 36' 109' 282' 45' E C A D C A E E A D D A D 66 27 3 54 35 3 68 60 2 51 45 8 38 0.81 0.48 0.16 0.61 0.70 0.20 0.78 0.86 0.10 0.44 0.65 0.23 314' 236' 38' 170' 338' 45' 268' 456' 19' 101' 247' 74' Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St Hayes Ave EB LT/TH/RT Eldredge St WB LT/TH/RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd SB LT D C A A 30 16 9 9 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.02 28' 18' 3' 3' C C A A 21 16 8 9 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.09 15' 10' 3' 8' The results of the above analyses indicate that the new peak hour traffic generated by Zones 1 and 3 will not create adverse traffic congestion conditions prior to New City Road “B” being constructed in Zone 2. 5.0 Multi-Modal Facilities Sidewalks are provided on the west side of Hinesburg Rd south of Kennedy Dr to south of Hayes Ave. Kennedy Dr has a shared-use path on its north side and a sidewalk on its south side. Existing traffic signals at the Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave intersections have pedestrian signals and marked crosswalks. Eldredge St presently has a shared-use path along one side of its entire length between Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr. New sidewalks will also be provided within this Project; generally on one side of the new streets in Zones 1 and 3, and on both sides in the more densely developed Zone 2. New City Road “A” will also have a shared-use path on its north side. Safe conditions for pedestrians crossing Kennedy Drive at the New City Road “B” intersection will be provided by installing pedestrian signals and a marked crosswalk at that intersection. An additional marked crosswalk will also be installed at the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St intersection crossing Hinesburg Rd on the north side of the Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 14 Consulting Engineers, Inc. intersection. A pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) will be provided at this crosswalk in order to improve crossing safety. CCTA’s U-Mall/Airport bus route also provides local transit service at ½ hour headways along Kennedy Dr. This route also travels Hinesburg Rd south to Country Park during peak periods. There are existing bus stops located on Kennedy Dr at Windridge Condominiums between Eldredge St and New City Road “B” and on Hinesburg Rd at Country Park. 6.0 Safety The posted speed limit on Kennedy Dr is 40 mph. Kennedy Dr is a four-lane undivided highway with exclusive turn lanes at its intersections. The posted speed limit on Hinesburg Rd between Kennedy Dr and the I-89 overpass is 35 mph. Hinesburg Rd is a two-lane road, and also has exclusive turn lanes at its intersections in the vicinity of this Project. The VTrans 2010-2014 High Crash Location Report identifies a 0.3 mile long section of Kennedy Dr from mile marker (mm) 0.50 - mm 0.80 as being a high crash segment with an actual/critical crash ratio of 1.256. This segment straddles Kennedy Dr/Timber Lane and Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd intersections, which are located at mm 0.58 and mm 0.69, respectively. Neither of those intersections are high crash intersections, however. A total of 53 crashes occurred during the 2010-2014 five-year period on this segment of Kennedy Drive; of which 15 occurred at Timber Lane (mm 0.56 - mm 0.60) and 27 occurred at Hinesburg Rd (mm 0.67 - mm 0.71). Subtracting those intersection crashes would result in this segment not being a high crash location. Over one- half of the 53 crashes (29) were rear-end collisions, and there were only six injuries in five of the 53 crashes. Safe traffic conditions on Eldredge St and New City Roads “A” and “B” within the Project will be provided by designing those roads and their intersections in accordance with accepted standards, and by providing adequate sight distances, street lighting and proper traffic control devices (pavement markings & signs). In examining the proposed new street layout, we recommend that all-way stop control be used at the New City Road “A” and “B” intersection until such time New City Road “A” is extended to Old Farm Rd. Additionally, we recommend that the southbound approach of Eldredge St at its intersection with New City Road “A” be stop-controlled. 7.0 Transportation Impact Fees Based on the estimated 425 pm peak hour trips, this Project will contribute $425,000± to the City of South Burlington in traffic impact fees. Those fees will be used to construct designated highway and intersection improvements throughout the City (as identified in the City Impact Fee Ordinance). One of the improvements listed in that Ordinance is a new connection linking Tilley Drive and Community Drive to the southeast of this Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 15 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Project. The cost of this new connection was estimated to be $500,0004, towards which this project will contribute approximately 80%. The City’s proposed new connection linking Tilley and Community Drives will significantly alter existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of this Project. It will divert existing traffic presently using Old Farm Rd as a short-cut between Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave, together with other traffic traveling between Hinesburg Rd south and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave east. The resulting new traffic patterns can be reasonably expected to improve future traffic congestion conditions and levels of service at the intersections examined in this TIA. 8.0 Conclusions From the foregoing analyses, we conclude that this Project will not adversely impact existing or future traffic congestion conditions. We also conclude that adequate traffic safety presently exists on the adjacent streets to this Project, and that this Project will not create unsafe conditions on those streets. Lastly, we conclude that this Project incorporates transportation demand strategies, and will provide safe access and connections to adjacent lands and facilities and to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks and services. 4 City of South Burlington 2007 Impact Fee Analysis Reports - Fire Protection, Roads & Recreation, Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, October 12, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 16 Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A Lamoureux & Dickinson Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX B DHV Calculations APPENDIX C Peak Hour Trip Generation & Distribution Calculations APPENDIX D Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX E Kennedy Dr/New City Road “B” Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX F Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX G Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St/Hayes Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Appendix H Concept Sketch of Kennedy Drive Improvements at New City Road “B” 75((723&20'20,1,80$662&,$7,21,1&.,0%$//$9(72:,//,6721.(11('<'5,9( 2 %5,(1+20()$50//& (;,67,1*0(',$1,6/$1'%$<%(55</$1((;,67,1*%,.(%$7+ (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. :,1'5,'*(+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,212 %5,(1+20()$50//& +90&25325$7,21 6287+%85/,1*721 (/'5('*(675((7+20(67($''(6,*1,1& *(25*(72:1$662&,$7,21,1& :,1',1*%522.+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,21,1& (;,67,1*6+$5('86(3$7+ .(11('<'5,9( (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. %86672338//2)) 75((723&21'20,1,80$662&,$7,21,1&68*$575((&21'20,1,80 2 %5,(1+20()$50//& (;,67,1*6+$5('86(3$7+ 1(:&,7<675((7% (;,67,1*&85% (;,67,1*(0(5*(1&<$&&(66 (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. .(11('<'5,9( .(11('<'5,9( (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. (;,67,1*%,.(3$7+ *5$66 (;,67,1*&85% *5$66 0$7&+/,1(67$ 0$7&+/,1(67$72:,//,67215' 72+,1(6%85*5'0$7&+/,1(67$0$7&+/,1(67$ 2 %ULHQ+RPH)DUP .HQQHG\'ULYH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ 'DWH 6KHHWQXPEHU 6FDOH &KHFNHG 'UDZQ 'HVLJQ 6XUYH\ 3URMHFW1R /DPRXUHX[ 'LFNLQVRQ&RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV,QF0RUVH'ULYH(VVH[97ZZZ/'HQJLQHHULQJFRP 5' 5' / ' 2WKHUV 67$6&$/( 3 ???GZJ?GZJ 30 #SD-16-32 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LEWIS REAL ESTATE– 1233 SHELBURNE ROAD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-32 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six (6) commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 6, 2016 and February 7, 2017. The applicant was represented by ___________. 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, Lewis Real Estate, seeks to amend a planned unit development consisting of six (6) commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Lakewood Commons Owners Association, Inc. 3. The application was received on October 17, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Commercial 1-Automobile Zoning District and the Traffic Overlay District. 5. The plans submitted consist of six (6) pages titled “Condominium Plat Lakewood Commons” dated 7/8/16, “Existing Conditions Plan” no date provided, “Site Plan” dated 6/30/16, “Landscape Plan” dated 8/17/16, “Site Details” dated 8/17/16, “Sewer & Water Details” dated 8/17/16, and “Stormwater & Erosion Details” dated 8/17/16. All plans were prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers. 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)(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. #SD-16-32 2 Plans show the use of erosion controls. Public Works was satisfied with the plans. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The application materials state there will be five (5) new P.M. Peak Hour trip ends on the property due to the additional proposed building and its retail use. The proposed building will use the existing one-way driveway for access to the property from Shelburne Road and the existing two-way egress from the property onto Lewis Road, a private street. The project lies within the Traffic Overlay District in Zone 2A. The existing site has a traffic budget of 101 P.M. Peak Hour trips each day. With the proposed building and use the site is projected to produce 110 trips each day, thus exceeding the traffic budget. The applicant has proposed installing a pedestrian connection that would extend from north-western corner of the property through the adjacent properties to the north to Fayette Road. Appendix B of the Land Development Regulations allows the Board to grant a credit of 10 vehicle trips when a pedestrian connection is developed between properties, because this creates the possibility of eliminating vehicle trips by converting those trips into pedestrian travel between sites. The Board finds a pedestrian connection from 1233 Shelburne Road to Fayette Road will mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development and the Board grants a credit of 10 vehicle trips, which brings the traffic budget for the site to 111 trips. (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 site is already heavily developed and there are no wetlands or similar areas of concern. The Board finds 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. The proposed project shows entrances to the building facing the access driveway to the property and Shelburne Road. There is a walkway leading from the existing sidewalk on Shelburne Road up to the proposed building entrance on the east side. The Board notes that for the past several years new projects in South Burlington have been oriented to the street on major roads. It is critical to continue this pattern if the urban form the City is looking to cultivate along these roadways is to be a reality. The Board finds the design of the proposed building and grounds meets this criterion. (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 Board finds that this project does not impact the primary existing open space on the property, which is located in the center of the already existing buildings and does not connect to other properties. 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. #SD-16-32 3 The Fire Department submitted a comment to the Board in an email dated November 21, 2016 stating that the project proposed no challenges for the Department. 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. The proposed project will involve the construction of a pedestrian connection to adjacent properties as discussed earlier in this decision. 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. The proposed project will involve the construction of a pedestrian connection to adjacent properties as discussed earlier in this decision. 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 Comprehensive Plan identifies Shelburne Road as an area where development will primarily occur as infill and that shared parking along with infrastructure that supports pedestrian movement should be encouraged. The proposed project is using a shared parking plan and connects to existing sidewalks to encourage pedestrian movement. The Board finds this criterion met. 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. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Shelburne Road as an area where development will primarily occur as infill and that shared parking along with infrastructure that supports pedestrian movement should be encouraged. The proposed project is using a shared parking plan and connects to existing sidewalks to encourage pedestrian movement. The Board finds this criterion met. 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. #SD-16-32 4 The proposed building is similar in style and appearance to buildings already on the site. Safe pedestrian movement from the sidewalk on Shelburne Road to the new building will be provided by a walkway. The Board finds this criterion to be 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. The proposed use of the new building would fit in the “Retail sales up to 3,000 sq. ft.” category, which requires four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The proposed building is 1,800 sq. ft. and therefore would require eight (8) parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the existing parking lot will be reconfigured to allow for three (3) additional parking spaces for a total of 210 (up from the current 207) and has submitted a shared parking analysis to account for the remaining five (5) spaces. Shared parking may be permitted by the Board pursuant to Section 13.01(E) and is encouraged by the City to reduce the overall amount of paved surface on a site. The shared parking analysis indicates that weekdays from 12pm to 2pm is the peak usage period. The analysis indicates 202 spaces could be needed during that time period; however, an onsite parking count performed by the applicant found only 105 spaces were in use during that time period. The Board finds shared parking to be an appropriate solution for this site with the new proposed building. The plan also shows a bicycle rack to the rear of the building, which the Board finds meets the requirements of Section 13.01(G)(5). (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 will not be more than 20 feet in height, which is not dissimilar from other buildings along Shelburne Road. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The Board finds this criterion 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 finds that the proposed building is stylistically in keeping with the buildings already on the site and will not impact the transition between the site and neighboring sites. The existing transition between sites will also be maintained by keeping two (2) existing mature trees close to Shelburne Road and in front of the proposed building. The transition between sites and the site’s relationship to the roadway will be improved by the additional landscaping required as part of the construction, which is discussed below. #SD-16-32 5 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 applicant has agreed to grant a 30 foot wide access easement to the adjacent property to the north, which will allow future development on that site to connect through the applicant’s site to Holmes Road to the south. The applicant has agreed, as discussed earlier in this decision, to enter into a reciprocal easement with neighboring property owners in order to construct a pedestrian connection to the north, which will allow the applicant to increase their traffic budget to accommodate the new building and its retail use. The Board considers this criterion met. 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. The Board finds this criterion met. 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’s plans show an enclosed dumpster located to the rear of the building beside the parking area. The Board finds this criterion 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 proposed building is projected to cost $500,000. 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% - Minimum Landscaping $ $12,500 Proposed Landscaping $12,545 #SD-16-32 6 The Board finds the landscaping plan and budget are acceptable. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans depict snow storage areas. The Board finds this criterion met. LIGHTING The plans show that an existing light fixture will be replaced by a new 18 foot tall fixture near the parking area. Additionally five (5) lighting fixtures will be mounted to the proposed building. The lighting plan shows that none of these fixtures will result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. During a site visit staff noted there were many light fixtures on the property that do not meet the requirements of the LDRs. Compliance with the exterior lighting standards of the LDRs will be a condition of approval for this project. 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. WAIVERS The applicant has requested a 10 foot waiver to the front setback requirement of 50 feet. The Board finds this waiver to be acceptable and it will noted in the conditions of this decision. OTHER An E911 address for the new structure is needed and will be a condition of this decision. DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by __________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD- 16-32 of Lewis Real Estate, subject to the following conditions: 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 plat must include an E911 address for the new building, in conformance with local ordinances and Vermont E911 addressing standards. 4. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit. #SD-16-32 7 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. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the new building will generate five (5) additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 8. Prior to issuance of the zoning permit, the applicant must record a Notice of Conditions in the Land Records indicating that the applicant will provide the owner of the property to the north a 30 foot wide access easement if deemed necessary by the Development Review Board in connection with a plan approved for development of the property to the north. 9. Prior to issuance of the zoning permit, the applicant and owner of the property to the north must record a reciprocal access easement in the Land Records for an eight (8) foot wide pedestrian easement. 10. The applicant must construct, within the eight (8) foot wide pedestrian access easement on the property to the north, a four (4) foot wide gravel path. The applicant must construct a four (4) foot wide gravel path and continue that path with striping on the pavement of the property currently designated as 10 Fayette Road. This path must be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 11. The applicant must post a $12,500 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. 12. The Board approves the following waiver: a. Front setback of 40 feet. 13. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months to construct the building pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 14. All exterior lighting on the property must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated. 15. The mylar must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 16. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the building. 17. Any change to the final plat will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. #SD-16-32 8 18. 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 first zoning permit. 19. The final plat plans (Condominium Plat Lakewood Commons and Site Plan) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plans, 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 __________________ 2017, 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 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. DDDD SDDDD D D D D D D DSSSUPUP6" PVC8" PVC6" PVC6" PVC6" PVC8" PVC8" PVCCB8" PVC6" PVC8" PVC CB8" PVC8" PVCDDMH #2METER CABINETON CONC. SLABCBMH #16" PVCSMHRIM=185.2EX. CBMH #3MH #1ASMH #2SHELBURNE ROAD8" PVCCBRIM=189.4iOUT=184.5SMHRIM=190.6iIN=180.3iOUT=180.3195 194 194194193193 193 192192 191191 190190 189189189188188188187187187186186 186186186186185185 185185185185184184UPTTTTGGSSSSSWSSSSWWWW W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WDDDDDDGGGGGGUP&TUP&TUPUP UP UP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPGGT T TG G G GG UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP& T UP&T UP&TUP&TUP&TUPUPUPUPUPUPUP6WWWWWWWW GGGGCBRIM=186.1iOUT=181.1RETAININGWALLCBRIM=181.7iIN=175.5iOUT=175.4SMHRIM=186.0iIN=179.7iOUT=179.215" RCP8" PVC 8" PVC15"CBRIM=181.5 CB CBCB CBUP UP GUP UP GG S S S OHP OHP OHP CBRIM=184.5i=182.0CBRIM=186.2iIN=181.1iOUT=180.8DD DCBCOCONCRETEAC PAD(4 AC UNITS)CLEANOUT CONCRETEMAILBOXPADCONCRETEAC PADGAS METERCONCRETEAC PADLANDSCAPEPLANTERCONCRETEAC PADCONCRETEAC PADBUILDING BBUILDING ABUILDING EBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING F6"PVC50' SETBACK EXISTINGACURABUILDING15' SETBACKSFARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP.D. FARRELL TRUSTLEWIS FAMILYPARTNERSHIPSHELBURNE ROADWW+++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + +++++++++++++++++++++++++SNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGESNOWSTORAGELIMITS OFCONSTRUCTIONDISTURBANCE30'30' ACCESS EASEMENT TOLAKEWOOD COMMONAND DAVID M. FARRELLTRUST (PROPOSED)40' 10' RD S S S S 30'++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++SNOW STORAGE++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++SNOW STORAGE34D D DSUPUPUPUPUP UP8" PVC SEWERD188187186DDDDDDDUP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUUP UP UP UP UP UP UP GGUP UP UP UP UP UP UP G G S PROPOSED SIGNS S SS SHELBURNE ROADEXISTINGLANDSCAPE LIGHTSTO BE REMOVEDWWWWWWW18719018918919118918824'SMH (DROP)R=189.0iIN=179.4iIN=183.0 (DROP)iOUT=179.4PROPOSED HANDICAPPARKING SIGNDUMPSTER WITH STOCKADE FENCE & GATEBIKE RACKPROPOSED FULLCUT-OFF LED FIXTURERELOCATE "ONE WAYDO NOT ENTER" SIGN18'9'PROPOSED FULLCUT-OFF BUILDINGMOUNTED FIXTURE(TYPICAL)DROP CURB8" PVC SEWERL=156' s=0.0058" PVC SEWERL=40' s=0.0054" PVC SEWERi=184.0TO BE REMOVEDCBRIM=186.2iIN=181.1iOUT=180.8RAISE RIM TO 187.0iIN=182.75 (RD)1" TYPE COPPER WATER SERVICERD RD RD 888888 8 8 888TREEPROTECTIONS S S S S S S SSTORMWATERTREATMENTSWALE SILT FENCE14"14"14"24"EXISTING LAMP POSTTO BE REMOVEDINLETPROTECTION20080230FeetGraphic Scale10 10 20 30 40Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 7637CIVILJEREMY M. MATOSKYSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:11/31/17 AADPED CONNECT/ LANDSCAPINGSite PlanC2-0106/30/16SHOWN16-099NPCAAD¬¬254Lewis Real Estate1233 Shelburne RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont¬T.M. # 1540-1233PROJECT LOCATION0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 1201. OWNER OF RECORD: LAKEWOOD COMMONSOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.1233 SHELBURNE RD, SUITE E3SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 054032. DEED REFERENCE: v. 214 p. 202v. 217 p. 1153. APPLICANT: LEWIS REAL ESTATEC/O DAVID A. LEWISP.O. BOX 4511BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05406ZONING DISTRICT: C1-AUTO, TRAFFIC OVERLAY ZONE 2C4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: FRONT 50 FT*SIDE 15 FTREAR 30 FT*10 FT WAIVER REQUESTED5. LOT AREA: 202,774 SQ. FT. = 4.66 ACRES6. PARKING SPACES: EXISTING 207PROPOSED 210COVERAGE CALCULATIONS:BUILDINGSOVERALLFRONT YARDEXISTING: 27,262 SF (13.4%) 118,502 SF (58.4%) 2,179 SF (10.9%)PROPOSED: 29,082 SF (14.3%) 122,353 SF (60.3%) 3,109 SF (15.5%NOTES: D D DDSUPUPUPUPUPUPD188187186DDDDDDDUP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUUP UP UP UP UP UP UP GGPUP UP UP UP UP UP UP G GSSSSS SHELBURNE ROADWWWWWWW22 RPJMC5 HMB15 HYP3 PG2 PG13 PO3 PSC7 PERENNIALS(SALVIA)RD RD RD 888888 8 8 888TREEPROTECTIONS S S S S S S S 14"14"14"24"EXISTING TREETO BE SAVEDEXISTING TREETO BE SAVED3 QR20080230FeetGraphic Scale10 10 20 30 40Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 7637CIVILJEREMY M. MATOSKYSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:Landscape PlanL1-0108/17/20161" = 10'16-099RMPAAD¬¬254Lewis Real Estate1233 Shelburne RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont¬T.M. # 1540-1233PLANT LISTL-001LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSTREE PLANTING DETAIL4" SAUCER RIMBACKFILL WITH EXCAVATEDMATERIAL. IF SOIL ISPREDOMINATELYCLAY OR GRAVELINCORPORATEORGANIC MATERIAL ASDIRECTED AND APPROVEDBY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPLANT PIT WIDTH3X BALL DIA.NOTES:* STAKE ONLY IN EXTREMELY WINDY CONDITIONS AS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT * IF KNOWN, PLANT THIN BARKED TREES WITH THE SAME SUN ORIENTATION OR WRAP WITH WHITE POLYPROPYLENE WRAP * BURLAP: LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE NATURAL BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE SYNTHETIC BURLAP * WIRE BASKETS: CUT AWAY BOTTOM RINGS. PARTIALLY BACKFILL THEN REMOVE REMAINING WIRE. * PLANT TREE TO EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, MAIN ORDER ROOT, AND IN SAME ORIENTATION AS TREE WAS GROWN. DO NOT PLANT TOO DEEP * 3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH (TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED FABRIC. DO NOT PLACE NEXT TO TREE TRUNK6" CLEARANCE2' DIA.MULCH RINGSLOPE GROUNDTO DRAINDIG TREE PIT ONLY ASDEEP AS ROOT BALLL-002LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSBALL AND BURLAP SHRUBFROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL*LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE BURLAPCONTINUOUS WHEN USED IN BEDS.WEED BARRIER FABRIC TO BE*SHREDDED BARK MULCH ANDGROWNWHICH SHRUB HAD PREVIOUSLY*PLANT SHRUB AT SAME DEPTH ATARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED(TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH3" SAUCER RIMFABRIC. DO NOT PLACE CLOSE TOMAIN STEM.PLANT PIT WIDTH 3XBALL DIA.NOTES:BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATEDMATERIAL. IF SOIL IS PREDOMINATELYCLAY OR GRAVEL INCORPORATEORGANIC MATERIAL AS DIRECTEDAND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECTPROJECT LOCATIONE-016NTSLAST REVISED 03/03/20142014 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSPROJECT DEMARCATION/TREE PROTECTION4'TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OF DISTURBED SOILS BY CONFINING EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES TOTHE APPROPRIATE AREAS. TO DIRECTLY PROTECT WATERS OF THE STATE AND VEGETATEDBUFFERS SURROUNDING THEM FROM NECESSARY DISTURBANCE.WHERE THE BORDER OF AUTHORIZED DISTURBANCE BORDERS AREAS OF EXISTINGVEGETATION OR WITHIN 100 FEET OF WATERS OF THE STATE.LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD'S) SHOULD BE THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION ITEM IMPLEMENTEDON A CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALL DISTURBANCE AREAS BORDERING AREAS OF EXISTINGVEGETATION SHOULD BE DEMARCATED WITH A BARRIER APPROPRIATE TO THE LOCATION.FLAGGING RIBBON/PAINT: FOR USE WHERE PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BORDERSESTABLISHED WOODED AREAS WHERE INADVERTENT DISTURBANCE BY MACHINERY IS NOTPOSSIBLE. MARK TREES ALONG LIMIT OF CLEARING WITH FLAGGING RIBBON OR PAINTCORRESPONDING TO THE CLEARING LIMITS ON EPSC PLAN. SPACING BETWEEN RIBBON ORPAINT MARKINGS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 50 FEET.BARRIER TAPE/ROPE: FOR USE WHERE PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BORDERS NON-WOODED,VEGETATED AREAS MORE THAN 100 FEET FROM THE NEAREST WATER RESOURCE (STREAM,BROOK, LAKE, POND, WETLAND, ETC.). BARRIER TAPE SHALL BE HIGH VISIBILITY FIBERGLASSTAPE WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 3 INCHES. BARRIER TAPE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TOSTAKES, AT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 FEET FROM THE GROUND.CONSTRUCTION FENCE/SNOW FENCE/BOULDERS: FOR USE WHERE THE PROPOSEDDISTURBANCE IS WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WATER RESOURCE (STREAM, BROOK, LAKE, POND,WETLAND, ETC.), UNLESS AREA IS DENSELY WOODED. FENCE SHOULD BE CONTINUOUSAND PREVENT ACCESS TO BUFFER AREAS BY MACHINERY. BOULDER SHALL BE SPACEDCLOSELY TO PREVENT MACHINERY ACCESS.TEMPORARY CHAIN-LINK FENCE: FOR USE WHERE PROPOSED DISTURBANCE IS IN CLOSEPROXIMITY TO WETLANDS (AS SHOWN ON EPSC PLANS). FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLEDDIRECTLY ON DELINEATION OF WETLAND TO ENSURE THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE TO THEWETLAND. TEMPORARY CHAIN-LINK FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG WITH SILT FENCEAPPROXIMATELY 6-INCHES ON PROJECT SIDE.PURPOSECRITERIACONDITION WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES20' MAX4'TYPICAL BARRIER TAPE DEMARCATIONTYPICAL SNOW FENCE DEMARCATIONSTEEL T-POST OR1 3/4-INCH SQUAREHARDWOOD POST4-FOOT BRIGHT ORANGEBARRIER/SNOW FENCE1.5-INCH SQUAREHARDWOOD POST3-INCH WIDE BRIGHT ORANGEPOLYPROPYLENE ORFIBERGLASS TAPE20' MAX.No. 7637CIVILJEREMYM.MATOSKYSTATEOFVERMOMNT PRO FESSIONANLENGNINEERLICENSED11/31/17 AADPED CONNECT/ LANDSCAPING DDABUILDING EBUILDING DBUILDING FG CORP.D. FARRELL TRUST348'2008023Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 7637CIVILJEREMY M. MATOSKYSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:11/31/17 AADPED CONNECT/ LANDSCAPINGPath SketchC2-0202/01/17SHOWN16-099NPCAAD¬¬254Lewis Real Estate1233 Shelburne RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont¬T.M. # 1540-1233PROJECT LOCATION0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 120SD-0441/2 " = 1'LAST REVISED 02/27/20142014 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSTYPICAL CRUSHED STONE WALK6"VARIESCRUSHED LIMESTONEWALKMINIMUM 6" GRAVEL BASEIN UNSUITABLE SOILS ONLYMIRAFI 140N GEOTEXTILE FABRICBELOW GRAVEL BASE IN UNSUITABLESOILS ONLYMETAL EDGING WITHSTAKE (OPTIONAL)NOTE: The purpose of this plan is to illustrate the location of apedestrian connection between the Lakewood Commons lot andthe nearest developed parcel to the north. The path generallyfollows the location of a future connection road and sidewalkproposed by an adjacent development. At such time thatdevelopment moves forward with their road and sidewalk, thispath will be removed. Lewis/Lakewood Commons2/1/2017East ElevationTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE) Lewis/Lakewood Commons2/1/2017North ElevationTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE) Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting EngineersMEMO To: City of South Burlington From: Abigail Dery, P.E. Date: November 28, 2016 revised 1/23/2016 Re: Lakewood Commons Traffic A. Introduction The proposed project consists of the addition of an 1,800 SF retail building to the existing Lakewood Commons commercial development located on the west side of Shelburne Road in South Burlington. This memo outlines the project-generated traffic for the site compared to the maximum traffic budget for the site, per the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. B. Project Access/Location The project is located in Traffic Overlay District Zone 2. Direct access to Shelburne Road is via an existing driveway, which is restricted to ingress only. There are both left and right turn lanes on Shelburne Road into the site in this location. Full access to the property is via Lewis Road and Holmes Road, which intersects Shelburne Road to the south of the project and is controlled by a traffic signal. The LDRs identify properties with “access to a high-volume roadway via private driveway” as being in Zone 2A, and those with “Access to a high-volume roadway via a public roadway or private driveway with a signalized intersection” as being in Zone 2C. If a parcel has one driveway in one zone and another driveway in another zone, the zone which is more restrictive shall apply to the entire property, and therefore this property will be considered as Zone 2A. C. Traffic Budget Maximum peak hour trip ends per 40,000 SF of land area in Zone 2A is 20 vehicles. The overall lot area is 202,774 square feet, giving the Lakewood Commons lot a traffic budget of 101 trips. 20*202,774/40,000 = 101 Page 2 of 5 Lakewood Commons 1/23/2016 A peak hour vehicle count was conducted at each driveway the one-week period between 9/14/2016 and 9/21/2016 to determine the project-generated traffic for the existing site. The average maximum number of trips entering and exiting the site for a one-hour period between 4:00-6:00 PM was observed to be 86 trips. Adding the calculated trips from the proposed retail use would bring the total to 91 trips for the site. D. Trip Generation Calculation Per the Land Development Regulations, the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to estimate the Office and Retail uses in the existing Lakewood Commons buildings A, C, D, E, and F. A local trip generation study was conducted to estimate traffic generated from Building B, the Eagle’s Club. The ITE Use most closely resembling the Eagle’s Club is 591- Lodge/Fraternal Organization. However, the rate identified for this use is based on a study of 1 site surveyed in 1977 in California, with on-site facilities including a clubhouse with 3 dining rooms, tennis courts, swimming pool, etc. It would not be appropriate to use this study as a good comparison for the existing site because of the single data point. Proposed project-generated traffic for the new Building G was calculated using the average rate for Specialty Retail published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. At 2.71 trips per 1,000 SF of floor area, an 1,800 SF retail store is estimated to generate 5 PM peak hour trips, on average. 1. Internal Capture As Lakewood Commons is a multi-use development, studies have shown that there is a percentage of traffic that enters a site for the purpose of using more than one use. These trips are known as internal capture trips. Using ITE methodology, it was determined that two trips will be identified as internal capture between the office and retail uses. These trips are subtracted from a site’s total external trips. A summary worksheet is attached. 2. Local Trip Generation Rate – Private Social Club/Lodge As discussed above, a local trip generation study was conducted on similar uses in the area. In addition to the Eagles Club on the project site, Peak Hour traffic volumes from three locations of similar use were observed. These locations Page 3 of 5 Lakewood Commons 1/23/2016 include the Moose Lodge on Williston Road in South Burlington, the Elks Club on North Avenue in Burlington, and the St. Johns Club on Central Ave in Burlington. Each of these locations was observed for the one-week period from 1/9/17 to 1/13/17. It was determined that the average rate of these businesses is 5.46 trips per 1,000 SQ FT. The table and graph below summarizes the results of the trip generation study. Table 1: Local Trip Generation Rate – Private Club/Lodge 3. Mitigation – Connection to Adjacent Parcel The DRB my approve peak hour traffic volumes above the zone’s maximum allowable traffic budget if it determines other site improvements with respect to improved access management, internal circulation, connections between Avg Rate Peak In Peak Out Total St. John's Club 5.2 18 8 26 5.00 Moose Lodge 3.6 13 5 18 5.00 BPOE 916 13.168 36 42 78 5.92 Eagles Club 5.4 32 5.93 5.46 Location Average All DaysSquare Footage (1,000 SF) Page 4 of 5 Lakewood Commons 1/23/2016 adjacent properties, and improved pedestrian access will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project. The challenge with this site is that the majority of these improvements already exist on the site – one-way entrance off the major road, with both left and right-turn lanes into the site, and a connection through adjacent parcel to the south with access to a signalized intersection. The applicant is willing to propose a pedestrian connection to the parcel to the north in the northwest corner of the parcel. Per Appendix B, if a connection consists of a pedestrian path only, the Traffic Budget credit shall be 10 vehicle trips. Project-generated traffic for Lakewood Commons is outlined in the table below, along with the traffic budget and mitigation credit. Project-generated traffic for Lakewood Commons will fall below the Traffic Budget for the site, with the inclusion of the pedestrian connection. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Conclusion The proposed project is expected to generation 5 PM peak hour trips, on average. Given the internal circulation, lot connection measures currently in place, and proposed pedestrian connection, it is not unreasonable for the DRB to approve the additional 5 peak hour trips that are anticipated to be generated by the proposed 1,800 SF retail space. Building Land Use Size Observed Traffic Budget 1,000 SF Rate Trips plus proposed Zone 2A A,C,D,E Office(1)40.0 1.49 60 B Private Social Club/Lodge(2)5.4 5.46 30 F Retail (3)6.0 2.71 17 G Retail (Proposed)1.8 2.71 5 5(3) Less Internal Trips -2 Credit for ped. connection 10 Total 110 91 111 86 20 trips per 40,000 SF Lot Area = 101 trips ITE Trip Generation (1) (2) (3) 826 - Specialty Retail Local Trip Gen. Rate for Private Social 710 - General Office 2008023Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 7637CIVILJEREMY M. MATOSKYSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 120Existing ConditionsPlanC1-02----1" = 30'16-099RMPAAD¬¬254Lewis Real Estate1233 Shelburne RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont¬T.M. # 1540-1233PROJECT LOCATIONSYMBOL LEGENDPERIOD-STYLE FIXTURESHOEBOX-STYLE FIXTURELANDSCAPE FIXTURE / BUILDING-MOUNTED FIXTURECATCH BASINSEWER MANHOLESEWER CLEANOUTUTILITY BOXUTILITY POLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, M. Behr, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, T. Hergenrother, D. Burke, P. Heil, J. Bialas 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. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller noted that the DRB will be meeting on Wednesday night to go over the applicant’s list of waivers. Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had provided DVDs of the previous hearings, as requested. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #MP-16-03 to 17 January 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. 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: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 2 Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 17 January 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-31 of Synergy Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 3 single family dwellings on 3 lots. The amendment consists of adding one single family dwelling to lot #3, 7 Chaplin Lane: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-31 to 17 January 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-34 of Hergenrother Construction, LLC, to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into 4 lots consisting of: 1) a 0.66 acre lot with the existing house (lot #1); 2) a 0.27 acre lot (lot #2); 3) a 0.29 acre lot (lot #3); a 0.28 acre lot (lot #4), 1410 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Heil said the property is just south of Butler Farms and abuts both Hinesburg Road and Highland Terrace. The existing single family house will remain and will be accessed from a shared drive on Hinesburg Road. All lots will be on municipal water and sewer. Stormwater will be contained on site. The main issue involves setbacks for lots 3 and 4 on Highland Terrace. Staff wants no more than a 25-foot setback, and the applicant is proposing more than 50 feet. Mr. Miller said the Board did agree with the setback as proposed. Mr. Behr questioned putting 2 small homes next to each other back 50 feet when there are other nearby homes set back 25 feet. He encouraged a 25 foot setback but recognized the regulations say “should” and not “shall.” Mr. Burke said the applicant feels 35 feet might work. He stressed that the homes will fit within the building envelopes. He also noted that a buyer for 1 lot is looking for the larger setback, and the developer doesn’t want to lose that sale. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 3 Mr. Bialas showed where he lives. He said the pine trees provide a lot of privacy. He would like the house to remain in front of the pines. Mr. Burke said there will be a 6 foot cedar hedge along the boundary. It was noted that the neighbor has asked that her pool be shielded by trees. She asked if the existing trees will remain. Mr. Heil said the trees are mostly on the neighbor’s lot. Nothing will be touched on that side. The neighbor at the bottom of the hill wanted to be sure there will be no runoff toward his property. Mr. Heil said there will be no runoff toward the neighbor’s property, the flow will also be less than today. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-34. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp., to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of 6 2-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 17 January 2017. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-80 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 6000 sq. ft. building consisting of: 1) 3000 sq. ft. of personal instruction use; 2) 1500 sq. ft. of personal service use; and 3) 1500 sq. ft. of undetermined use, 89 Rye Circle: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SP-16-80 to 17 January 2017. Mr. Baer seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 4 10. Discussion regarding Deliberative Sessions: Mr. Kochman said he believes the South Burlington LDRs require all meetings to be open to the public, and he didn’t see a good reason why they shouldn’t be. Mr. Behr said deliberation used to occur in open session, and the DRB was very strongly directed by the Secretary of State not to hold deliberative sessions in public. Mr. Kochman suggested checking with the City Attorney. Mr. Behr suggested asking the Planning Commission to change the language in the LDRs. Members agreed to have this checked with the City Attorney. 11. Minutes of 20 December 2016: Mr. Kochman said that in the discussion on affordable housing in the proposed Larkin development, Mr. Larkin had said that affordable housing would be part of their objective whether they need a density bonus or not. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 20 December 2016 with the above addition. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: No other issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:01 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 January 2017, 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: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Desautels, D. Deslauriers, R. Neuer, E. & R. Aguila, J. Pidgeon, A. Gill, B. Frisbie, J. Leinwohl, S. Lidorson, E. Barfod, D. Marshall, J. Goodwin 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: No announcements were made. 4. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive : and 5. 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 advised that both of these items would be continued as the DRB is still reviewing the waiver requests and other pertinent data. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-03 and #MP-16-01 until 7 February. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 2 6. Final Plat Application #SD-16-35 of Sterling Construction, Inc., to create three footprint lots, 69, 73 & 83, South Jefferson Road: Mr. Frisbie noted they have done this several times before. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-35. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Design Review Application #DR-16-05 OF University of Vermont Medical Center for a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the application was to be continued. Mr. Cota moved to continue #DR-16-05 until 7 February 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-31 of Synergy Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of three single family dwellings on three lots. The amendment consists of adding one single family dwelling to lot #3, 7 Chaplin Lane: Ms. Desautels said they are adding one dwelling unit to lot #3. They have spoken with the Champlain Housing Trust and with the developer of the Kirby Cottages and would like to do something similar to what they did regarding affordability covenants for the existing unit. The covenant would expire in 20 years. Mr. Belair noted that once the covenant expires, the “innovative” part of the development goes away. Ms. Desautels said there were other innovations that will not be going away. Mr. Kochman said he felt perpetual covenants are generally unenforceable. He thought the applicant made a “reasonable accommodation.” Ms. Barfod, a neighbor, expressed concern with possible additional stormwater coming DEVELOMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 3 down toward them. She said the city’s stormwater person said if things are done properly, she shouldn’t suffer from any more water. Ms. Desautels said they will not increase the flow of water onto Ms. Barfod’s property. Mr. Miller said the applicant will have the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim during preliminary and final plat review. No other issues were raised. 9. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12-unit planned unit development of 21.8 acres consisting of six two- family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 7 March 2017. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Continued Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-80 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building consisting of: 1) 3000 sq. ft. of personal instruction use, 2) 1500 sq. ft. of personal service use, and 3) 1500 sq. ft. of undetermined use, 89 Rye Circle: Mr. Rabideau indicated the location of the property and noted it is being developed as a mixed use/mixed density. He indicated a small sliver of land which is the commercial piece. The proposed project would be the third of 4 commercial buildings, all single story. The first building is complete and occupied. The proposed building would be a wood-frame structure housing three businesses, each with a separate entrance. Catamount Physical Fitness will own the building. There will also be an outdoor yard where fitness activities can be held in nice weather. Mr. Rabideau then showed the building elevations and noted a porch that faces Rye Circle. He explained the lighting and windows and agreed to add more windows if the DRB requests. He also showed the location for signage. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 4 Mr. Miller noted the applicant still does not have Fire Department OK. Mr. Rabideau said they won’t build without that. He also indicated the location of fire hydrants, which are within the required distances. Mr. Cota asked about DPW comments. Mr. Rabideau said they will comply. He noted they have a stormwater permit for the whole subdivision. Mr. Miller noted staff’s requirement for screening of utility cabinets. Mr. Rabideau said they will comply. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SP-16-80. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to 7 February. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-32 to 7 February 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-82 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) relocation of taxiway “G”, 2) new aircraft holding bay, relocation of taxiway “A”, 3) reconstruction of taxiways “M” & “H”, and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl explained that they are relocating a section of taxiway as the existing pavement doesn’t meet current standards. A holding bay will also be constructed as a place for aircraft to go while waiting for clearance to depart. Mr. Leinwohl showed the taxiways that will be reconfigured to address safety concerns. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUAYR 2017 PAGE 5 There is an existing stormwater pipe for Airport drainage. It goes into an open ditch down an embankment. This results in a lot of sediment and silting of the pond. This situation will be improved in coordination with the city as the area is South Burlington property. Mr. Leinwohl noted the new taxiway will be 100 feet further back from the neighborhood. Mr. Deslauriers expressed concern with the holding area where planes may be for a long period of time with engines running. He wanted an enclosure to protect the public and traffic from the noise. He acknowledged this would be expensive, but he said it would be worth it, especially if there are larger aircraft coming to the airport. Mr. Deslauriers also requested that as the taxiways are torn apart that heavy trafficking be done on airport property, not public roads and that the airport be liable for damage to public roads or vehicles. He also requested that the soil be tested for contaminants with proof that can be shared with the City. Mr. Belair noted that it was determined years ago that the City cannot regulate noise coming from the Airport. He cited a communication from the City Attorney Stitzel explaining that. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a plan to abate any of the noise. Mr. Leinwohl said they have done an analysis that when an aircraft is leaving the holding are the jet blast is not beyond allowable limits. Mr. Leinwohl explained how damage will be handled. He said they are aware of one area of contamination, and there is a remediation plan for that. Anything that is encountered on site is checked. He felt it was not unreasonable to include that as a stipulation. Mr. Wilking noted the Airport is moving soil to another site on their property, so no off-site contamination is threatened. Mr. Leinwohl said there is a very rigid protocol for testing and dealing with contaminated soil. He added that all work is under the supervision of a licensed engineer who has both professional and ethical responsibility as a professional engineer. Mr. Kochman noted that federal law does not pre-empt zoning regulations and felt these concerns should be carefully looked at. Mr. Cota said he didn’t know of an engineer who would risk disbarment by ignoring an issue. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 6 Mr. Wilking expressed concern with noise and noted that the neighborhood has had more than its share of noise issues. He said he would like to see the former City Attorney’s opinion on the noise issue. Mr. Belair said that can be reviewed in a deliberative session. He will try to locate that communication. Mr. Kochman asked the duration of the project. Mr. Leinwohl said it will start in 2017 and extend into 2018. Mr. Cota then moved to close #SP-16-82. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 13. Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-16-36 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to place 228,000 cubic yards of fill in the former quarry on the airport property, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Parsons asked about the comments from the Champlain Water District. Mr. Leinwohl said they are OK with the comments. He showed the location of the CWD water line along the perimeter of the Airport property. They wanted to be sure it wasn’t covered with fill material. The location of that line will be shown on the plan. Mr. Leinwohl noted that Air Guard is now doing a project and they have material they also want to put into the quarry. That is where some of the 228,000 yards is from. With regard to noise, Mr. Leinwohl said the can limit the use of compacting rollers. There would be trucks bringing material during the night, but no compacting. He didn’t know the Air Guard’s plans in this regard. Mr. Wilking said the Airport should do everything in its power to mitigate noise. He felt there are ways to plan to keep noise to a minimum. Mr. Belair noted that when this application comes back to the DRB, there may be some changes due to ongoing negotiations with the City of South Burlington. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 7 14. Minutes of 2 August 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 August 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 15. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date