Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 10/03/2017 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 October 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone) ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; J. Boyd, T. & P. Sheppard, P. Brogna, D. & S. Mowat, J. Goodwin, D. Penar, C. & J. Soncrant, B. DeBenedet, J. Barrows, L. Nadeau, N. Andrews, T. & D. Child, M. Janswold, S. & M. Merrill, J. & N. Kvasnak, R. Jeffers, J. Anderson, B. Currier, J. Darling, K. Cubino, B. Darling, P. Johns, L. DeMaroney, P. O’Leary, D. Marshall, P. O’Brien, B. Milizia, S. Jewett, J. Jewett 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Parsons will not seek reappointment to the DRB. He is still a member until he is replaced. 5. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-17-18 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four 2-family dwellings, 3) two 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Marshall said they had worked with staff on outstanding issues. He stressed that this is Phase III and does not concern issues with Phases I and II. He then reviewed the staff comments: a. Staff recommends the DRB approve the request to apply previously approved single family waivers. There was no opposition to this b. The applicant is OK with requirements for protection of wetlands, wetland buffers including no mowing, no use of pesticides, etc. c. Staff is OK with the Fire Department’s acceptance of the applicant’s responses to their issues. d. There is a recommendation to eliminate the sidewalk in front of units 101, 102 and 103. The applicant noted that there have been appeals from Phase II regarding curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the road. There is a rec path on the south side of the road in this case, and the applicant is proposing a standard sidewalk on the north side. There had been discussion of extending that sidewalk to Douglas Street, but this involves an archeologically sensitive area with no homes there. Mr. Marshall said they have created a “maintenance loop” to allow maintenance vehicles to return to the main corridor. He noted that Public Works still prefers no sidewalk, but the applicant is asking the Board to consider a sidewalk because of the nature of South Village. Mr. O’Brien added that this is also a safety issue. Mr. Wilking asked if the sidewalk could be maintained by the homeowners. Mr. O’Brien said they are fine with that. e. Detailing of pavement markings will be worked out with Public Works. f. The applicant is required to pay the city $20,000 for off-site traffic calming. Money will be fully allocated for that prior to completion of the base course of paving on Midland Avenue g. The applicant had no issues with demonstrating compliance with conforming to design review standards. h. The applicant had no issues with landscape budgeting. i. The applicant will construct the rec path at the same time as the Midland Avenue connection. j. Because of an E‐911 issue, a portion of Midland Avenue will be temporarily named “Chipman” until Midland is completed. k. The applicant had received state permits for a 20-foot road at the wetland crossing, but all parties are OK with 18 feet. l. All South Village design standards will be adopted. m. There is a condition proposed that there will be 6 affordable units with no more than 4 in multi-family buildings. Mr. Behr said that if there are 3 different types of housing, the affordable units should be equally distributed. There should not be a disproportionate number in the multi-family buildings. Mr. Marshall said when you look at the whole development, that distribution will be met. Mr. Behr said the affordable units are to be equally distributed among all the phases; they should not all be in one place. He felt that if the DRB is only going to see this phase, the affordable units should be equally distributed so there is no “playing catch‐up.” Board members supported Mr. Behr’s comments. n. Regarding phasing, this provides a window of time in which multi-family buildings can come in. o. Mr. Marshall showed the vertical storage for 12 bicycles. There are also storage lockers for each unit which can accommodate bike storage. There will also be short-term bike storage racks with 4 spaces each. Ms. Keene noted staff’s concern with security (lock ability). Mr. Marshall said they will work out staff’s concerns. p. Regarding stormwater, the stormwater system will be maintained until such time as it is taken over by the municipality. Public comment was then requested: Ms. Boyd (resident of phase I) felt it is important to have the sidewalk in front of the three indicated units. She also questioned whether lots 103 and 106 are in conformance with the legal settlement. Mr. Marshall said they fully comply. . Ms. Boyd also asked the Board to re-look at setback waivers as there are a lot of people in a small area. Mr. Mowat (resident of phase II) felt Phase III shouldn’t be passed until the Board looks at the development as a whole. He noted that plans for Phase I and II are “in flux.” Ms. Soncrant (resident of phase II) was concerned with the multiplex units. She didn’t see how Phase III could be approved without consideration of the whole development. Mr. Andrews wanted to be sure about what is being called “condo” units. He noted there are no owner-occupied units in the multi family buildings now, which he defined as condo units. Mr. Miller said staff will continue to get some information and questions answered. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-18 until 17 October 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-20 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots, 54 two-family dwellings, and thirty 3-unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Miller noted the applicant had submitted a revised plan. He didn’t feel it made sense for the DRB to look at the plan in detail until the applicant has met with some of the city’s committees. Mr. O’Leary said they have met with the Recreation Committee and they are OK with the plan. He didn’t think there would be any changes after a meeting with the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Miller noted there had been a question as to whether the DRB can require the applicant to build the Cider Mill Road connection. The City Attorney says the DRB can require this. Mr. O’Leary said they agree with that opinion, but the Board has to show both connections (Cider Mill Road and Braeburn Street) are needed (e.g., traffic issues, etc.). Mr. Miller said this will require a traffic study. Mr. Belair said the Board can invoke technical review and request a traffic study on that issue. Mr. O’Leary said the traffic study they have done does not look at that issue. Mr. Miller also noted the City Attorney’s opinion that the DRB has the authority to require a rec path. The City Attorney was also asked for an opinion as to whether the DRB can require more open space in Cider Mill I. The answer to this was no. Mr. Behr asked what they would be looking for in a traffic study. Ms. Keene said the issue would be whether the absence of a connection would put a burden on other streets. Mr. Behr asked what the quantifiable threshold is. Ms. Keene said they don’t know if this is quantifiable. Mr. Behr felt the applicant’s meeting with Natural Resources Committee will be critical. Mr. Miller noted staff’s concern that the dead‐end street is more than 200 feet long, which is the longest permissible length. Mr. O’Leary said they can put the last few units on a private drive to solve that. They had done it this way to create more open space. Ms. Smith asked about the rec path and connection from Russet Road. Mr. O’Leary showed the original path. They propose to continue the path across the green strip between Russett Road and Liberty Lane (they also propose a split-rail fence there). There will be a “boardwalk” through the wetland. They will then make the connection with the existing path easement & construct the path in the existing path easement. There will be a multi-use path from Phase I all the way to Hinesburg Road. They will minimize impact on the wetland. Public comment was then requested: Ms. Cubino was concerned with emergency access if Cider Mill Road is not extended. She also noted the number of children on side streets where traffic will go if the road isn’t connected. Ms. Penar cited the need for open spaces to be coordinated for wildlife. She questioned whether there is an adequate corridor and cited the need to keep that corridor open. She also suggested narrowing the road that connects the two neighborhoods to discourage use by people not living in the neighborhoods. Mr. Darling cited the number of children playing in the roads as there is no open space for them to play. He felt the road needs to be connected for an east-west connection. Ms. DeMaroney asked whether Phase I and II are separate developments. Mr. Miller said for road purposes, yes, for the rec path, maybe, and for open space no. Ms. Jewitt asked what a traffic study would show. Ms. Keene said it will indicate impacts on intersections and additional trips. The traffic study would be done independently. Mr. Nadeau said he would like them to consider having two lanes out of Nadeau Crest Drive, one each for left and right turns. Mr. Darling said school buses have a hard time on Sommerfield Ave., and this is something of a safety issue. Ms. Keene asked him to call her and give her details and she would have someone look into it. 7. Minutes of 19 September 2017: The spelling of Mr. Behr’s name was corrected on p. 7. Under the South Village sketch plan item, a sentence was corrected to read “initial connection for the first 49 units will be from Hinesburg Road; after that, connection will be from Sommerville Road. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 September as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. 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 8:42 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on December 5, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 1 1 of 21  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD    DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: September 29, 2017  Plans received: July 12, 2017, Supplemented Sept 1,  September 27, 2017  SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC  FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐17‐18  Agenda Item #5 Meeting Date: August 15, 2017  Continued: September 19, October 3,  2017  Location Map          SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 2 2 of 21  PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Final plat application #SD‐17‐18 of South Village Communities, LLC for approval of Phase IIIB of 334 unit  planned unit development. Phase IIIB is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four  (4) two‐unit family dwellings, 3) two (2) three‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and 4) 24 multi‐family  dwelling units in two (2) buildings, 1840 Spear Street.    The Master Plan application (#MP‐05‐02) for this project was approved by the Board on February 10,  2006.  The Phase 2 plan application (#SD‐13‐44) for this project was approved by the Board on March  10, 2014.      COMMENTS    Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed  the plans submitted on July 12, 2017 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the  Board’s attention are in red.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    The project is located in the Southeast Quadrant ‐ Neighborhood Residential (SEQ‐NR) sub‐district.  The  dimensional standards outlined in Table C‐2 of the Land Development Regulations were altered though the  Master Plan approval process for the subject property.  The approved waivers are outlined in the decision  and findings of fact for Master Plan #MP‐05‐02 and duplicated below.    • Single‐family minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet to 3,600 square feet  • Single‐family maximum building coverage from 15% to 42% (Increased to 50% in MP‐09‐01)  • Single‐family maximum lot coverage from 30% to 61%  • Single‐family front yard setback from 20' to 10'  • Single‐family rear yard setback from 30' to 10' (5' for rear lanes)  • Multi‐family maximum building coverage from 15% to 50%  • Multi‐family maximum lot coverage from 30% to 65%  • Multi‐family front yard setback from 20' to 10'  • Multi‐family rear yard setback from 30' to 5'    Staff notes that the building coverage table provided by the applicant states incorrectly that they are  allowed a maximum lot coverage of 70% for all types of buildings.  The proposed lot coverage for single‐ family and three‐and‐greater family buildings is less than the approved coverages, therefore this error does  not affect single and three‐and‐greater family buildings.  However, there are no approved waivers for two‐ family buildings.  Therefore the proposed two‐family buildings do not meet the dimensional standards for  setbacks, minimum lot size, building coverage or lot coverage.   The applicant has requested that the  previously approved waivers for single‐family dwellings be also applied to two and three family buildings.    This waiver, if approved, would result in all proposed buildings and coverages meeting the dimensional  standards.    1. Staff recommends the Board approve the request to apply previously approved single‐family waivers to  two and three‐family dwellings.    As part of the Master Plan approval, triplexes are not subject to site plan approval.  The applicant has  requested site plan review for the two twelve‐unit buildings as part of this application, and has submitted  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 3 3 of 21  information to allow that review.      MASTER PLAN    Pursuant to Section 15.07 D (3), the following applies:    Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that  deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new  application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended  master plan:  a) An  increase  in  the  total  FAR  or number  of  residential  dwelling units  for  the  property  subject to the master plan;   b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;  c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property  subject to the master plan;  d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in  the approved master plan application; and/or  e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends  projected for total build‐out of the property subject to the master plan.    The roadway configuration has not changed substantially from the master plan approval.  The roadway  configuration for the cul‐de‐sac in Phase IIIB has changed from the master plan, however it remains  substantially a cul‐de‐sac and therefore does not rise to the threshold of requiring Master Plan  amendment/approval.     No changes in FAR, coverage, number of units, or PM Peak hour vehicle trip ends are proposed.  Therefore, an amendment to the Master Plan is not required.    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.     According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public  utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the  proposed dwelling units.    According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or  developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by  the City and the State in any subdivision where off‐lot wastewater is proposed.      The applicant has submitted and received preliminary wastewater allocation for 60 units of Phase III.  Staff  considers this criterion to be met.      SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 4 4 of 21  (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.    The Project is subject to a State Construction Stormwater Permit.  In addition, the Project plans  demonstrate intent to comply with the temporary and permanent stabilization timelines and topsoil  thickness requirements of Section 16.03.    (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent  unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #MP‐05‐02, the Board established Condition #17 that “The  applicant shall construct southbound left‐turn lane on Spear Street at the “South  Entrance” of the project, prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a dwelling unit in  Phase 3 (The Ridge).”    (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 applicant has submitted a copy of the state wetland permit for encroachment into the class II wetland  and wetland buffers, which was approved on September 10, 2014.    9.06(B) (5) also requires that wetlands and buffers, streams, and natural communities be visually  delineated in some way in order to prevent creep from private parcels into the wetland.   The applicant  has provided a wetland buffer design plan which describes measures to be taken throughout the entire  South Village Project to delineate wetlands, wetland buffers, and common land areas.  This plan was  accepted as part of the state wetland permit.  The Board considered this plan as adequately protective  of resource areas as part of Phase II of the development.    The applicant has developed and recorded with the City Land Records a Land Management Plan, which  applies to the entire development.  The Land Management Plan outlines required measures designed to  ensure the long‐term health of natural resource areas within the Project.  The Land Management Plan is  included in the South Village Community Association Bylaws, which the applicant has provided as part of  this application.    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD‐13‐44, the Board established:    * Condition #15 which stated that “(i) n order to protect the wetland and associated buffer  areas, the following conditions are attached to this approval, and shall be included in homeowner  documents for owners of the lots and dwelling units:  no pesticide nor herbicide application within  wetlands and buffer areas; no mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers; disturbance of wetland  vegetation should be limited to remediation activities; and no planting non‐native species in wetlands or  their buffers.    2. Staff recommends that the Board also adopt this Condition for Phase IIIB.    Staff considers this Criterion to be met.     (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 5 5 of 21  area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is  located.     Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ)  is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource  protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as planned residential  use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character  and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in  the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in  the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this  area shall be encouraged.    This criterion was found to be met during the Master Plan phase of the Project.  The layout proposed for  Phase 3 matches the layout approved in the Master Plan, with the exception of reconfiguring the cul‐de‐ sac by the two multiplex buildings.  This change does not affect development patterns.  Staff considers  this Criterion to be met.    (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.     This criterion was found to be met during the Master Plan phase of the Project.  The layout proposed for  Phase 3 matches the layout approved in the Master Plan, with the exception of reconfiguring the cul‐de‐ sac by the two multiplex buildings.  This change does not affect open space.  Staff considers this  Criterion to be 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.    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD‐13‐44 the Board set forth Condition #6 which required  that “(t)he Fire Chief shall review the final plat plans.”    As copied below, the Deputy Fire Chief provided formal comments to staff on September 14, 2017 via  email, and the applicant provided responses to the Fire Chief’s comments on September 27, 2017.  The  Deputy Fire Chief’s comments are in blue while applicant’s responses are in green.    1. Fire hydrants must be installed and tested before construction of combustible buildings are  started pursuant to NFPA 1 Chapter 18.   This is acceptable to the applicant provided that the wording is slightly modified to read  “…before construction of the combustible portions of buildings are started…”  This allows  foundation work on the buildings to proceed without delay while the water main  infrastructure work is being concurrently installed.    2. Minimum hydrant flow shall be based on NFA‐ NFF formula plus a safety margin of not less  than 10%.  With the understanding that the NFA‐NFF formula is admittedly accurate only up to 1,000  GPM (therefore useful for small commercial buildings or single family homes) the applicant is  acceptable to this condition.  The NFA‐NFF formula does not take into account the normal  design flow reductions for sprinklered buildings (the two 12‐plex buildings).  We have  submitted design flows for all of the structures utilizing the Insurance Services Method  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 6 6 of 21  (recommended for use by the State of Vermont) in applying for the Public Water Supply  Permit.  The available fire flow is 2699 GMP while the largest non‐sprinklered building is one  of the triplex structures with a required fire flow of 2488 GPM.  The NFA‐NFF formula for the  95x55 building with an upper floor exposure and a side yard exposure to another building is  2613 GPM.  This falls within the available fire flow for the project.    3. Fire Department access to these phases including temporary turn around shall be installed  when construction begins to each phase.   This acceptable.  4. All roads shall comply with Fire Department apparatus turning radii (includes mutual aid  apparatus).  The proposed cul‐de‐sac serving the two 12‐plex buildings comply with the latest geometrics  set forth by the City.  It is our understanding that the DPW coordinated with the Fire Department  in setting these design values.    5. Parking of construction vehicles shall be restricted to one side of the road to maintain Fire  Department access during construction.    This acceptable.  6. The Project shall comply with NFPA 241 – Safe Guarding buildings under construction,  alteration or demolition.   This acceptable.    3. The Deputy Fire Chief has indicated that the provided responses are acceptable.  Staff considers that  the Deputy Fire Chief’s recommendations be included, as amended, as conditions of the approval.    See also discussion of Condition #8‐J below.    (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.    (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.    Infrastructure details submitted as part of the preliminary and final plat application include roadway profiles  and sections, utility plans, stormwater plans, and lighting cut sheets and point by point plan.     The Project includes a wetland crossing on the proposed segment of Midland Avenue east of the Project  just prior to connection with the existing segment of Midland Avenue.  This crossing is alternatively called  out as a bridge and as a culvert in the plans and details, respectively.  In a meeting with the Applicant on  August 3, 2017, the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) director requested that the applicant revise the  crossing to provide more cover over the culvert.  The applicant has increased the cover over the crossing to  2‐feet, which the DPW considers acceptable.      The applicant provided required materials to demonstrate compliance with Section 12.03 of the Land  Development Regulations (stormwater) on September 11, 2017.  Comments from the Stormwater Section  follow.    The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “South Village Communities, LLC Phase IIIB” progress plans  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 7 7 of 21  prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 4/05/17 and most recently updated on 9/1/17. We  would like to offer the following comments:    1. This project is located in the Munroe Brook and watershed. This watershed is listed as  stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation  (DEC).    2. In the maintenance plan provided for the proposed Stormwater treatment practices it is noted  that “During construction, no runoff shall be discharged to the BMPs prior to stabilization to  eliminate sediment discharge into the system.” The applicant should add this note to the plans  to ensure that the contractor is aware of this requirement.   3. The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) indicates that a 12’ wide maintenance  access should be provided in order to facilitate equipment access for maintenance of  stormwater treatment practices. Please provide a 12’ wide maintenance access on all  Stormwater ponds and gravel wetlands to allow for access to forebays and outlet structures.  a. The applicant indicated in their response to “Please refer to updated Plan Set that will  be provided under separate cover for this information.” The information has not been  provided under separate cover. It is unclear when this information will be provided.   4. Sheet C2.4 shows a quiet path going over the emergency overflow. Will the emergency overflow  be lined with riprap, as is detailed on C6.4? Type II riprap may be difficult to walk across. Have  any other alternative spillway designs or path locations been considered?  a. The applicant indicated in their response that a foot bridge will be added over the  emergency spillway and noted to “Please refer to updated Plan Set that will be provided  under separate cover for this information.” The information has not been provided  under separate cover. It is unclear when this information will be provided.   5. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater  treatment and conveyance infrastructure.   Regards,  Dave    The applicant provided updated plans on 9/27/2017 to address these comments.  In an email dated  9/27/2017, the Stormwater Section indicated that they are satisfied with the responses provided and do  not have any further comments.    The applicant has provided narrowed intersections as provided in Figure 9‐6 of the LDRs and pedestrian  bump‐outs at mid‐block crossings.  In a meeting with the Applicant on August 3, 2017, the DPW director  requested that the applicant add a raised intersection at the Midland Avenue and Stafford Street four‐way  intersection to control speed on Midland Avenue, which the applicant has done.     The applicant has provided a narrowed road section for the portion of Midland Avenue through the  Wetland buffer.    After a meeting between the Applicant and the DPW on August 3, 2017, the applicant reconfigured some  sidewalks to facilitate City maintenance.  The DPW requested that the applicant remove the sidewalk from  in front of units 100, 102 and 103.  The applicant has requested for that segment of sidewalk to remain, as  follows.    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 8 8 of 21  This was requested to be removed with the understanding that the recreation path was on the  opposite side of Midland Avenue with the retention of the midblock crossing near Lot 103. The  applicant is asking for a reconsideration of this request.    The lot layout here is similar to that on the section of Midland Avenue to the east between the  Stafford Street Intersections where there is the recreation path on one side and a sidewalk on  the other side of this connector roadway. The entire South Village project has been design to  provide sidewalks or recreation path in front of every unit.    Discussions at the previous hearing included the possibility of extending the eastern end of the  sidewalk at lot 103 further to the east to Douglas Street. Our concern with this is that the  extended sidewalk would cross an archaeologically sensitive area. This is also inconsistent with  the DPW’s goals of eliminating sidewalk where no homes fronted on the sidewalk.    In order to balance all interests, we have revised the plans to show a reduced sidewalk length of  sidewalk (elimination of the tail at the west end) on the north side of Midland Avenue and the  introduction of a flush curb on the opposite side of the road so as to allow the sidewalk plow to  complete a more efficient loop.    On September 6, 2017, the DPW provided the following response    1. I see they tried to compromise and included sidewalk along the front of units 100, 102 & 103. I  still feel strongly that this sidewalk should be eliminated for reasons previously stated.    4. Planning and Zoning staff concur with the DPW Director and recommend that the sidewalk along the  front of units 100, 102 & 103 be eliminated because the provision of an easier loop does not enhance  access for the City’s maintenance procedures. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the  impacts of the sidewalk to the City infrastructure maintenance are warranted.    The DPW provided the following additional comments on pavement markings.    1. Sheet C7.1 – Site Details:   a. The Crosswalk Detail shows the markings as “Thermoplastic Tape.” Remove that  reference and replace with VTrans Pavement Marking Tape, Type A, 708.12(a) as  approved by the Public Works Department.  b. The Line Striping Detail shows the markings as “4 inch white painted markings.” Remove  that reference and replace with VTrans Pavement Marking Tape, Type A, 708.12(a) as  approved by the Public Works Department.  2. Sheet C7.7 references a “4 inch reflective white marking, see detail.” I could not find the  referenced detail.  3. Within the Site Specifications starting on C8.1 a section on Pavement Markings needs to be  added and it needs to state, “All pavement markings on public streets shall be VTrans Pavement  Marking Tape, Type A, 708.12(a) as approved by the Public Works Department.”  The current  approved product list can be found at  http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/portal/documents/alpqm/APL.pdf.     5. The applicant made some modifications to their plans to comply with the above comments on  pavement markings. However, the DPW notes that the modifications are not specific enough and  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 9 9 of 21  mention only “reflective markings.”  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant modify the  plans to reflect the provided language as it pertains to pavement markings.    6. Master Plan Condition 18 states that the applicant shall provide $20k of off‐site intersection  upgrades and traffic calming measures.  The applicant has requested a condition which states “The  applicant shall make a $20,000 payment to the City of South Burlington prior to the completion of  the base course of asphalt paving on Midland Ave through the Phase III portions of the Project.”   Staff considers that the Board should include this condition.    The applicant has provided a phasing plan indicating that the infrastructure will be constructed in three  (3) phases.  See Site Plan Review Standard (D) below for further discussion of bonding for phasing.      Lighting is discussed 9.08, SEQ Neighborhood Residential.     (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected  district(s).    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #MP‐05‐02, the Board found this criterion to be 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 the proposed development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.    Staff considers this criterion to be met.    (B)(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.    7. The applicant has provided a set of Design Review Standards.  Staff recommends the Board adopt  the Design Review Standards as a condition of approval.      (B)(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.  b. The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or  more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The  Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.  i. The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans  with Disabilities act    c. …  (iii) The parking area will serve a single or two‐family home;    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 10 10 of 21  Single and two‐family homes in the proposed Phase II are not subject to this standard.     Although 3‐unit structures are not exempt from the above standard, the Board has previously found that  with the Master Plan having granted a waiver for 3‐unit buildings to be approved without site plan approval,  this standard related to parking location requirements does apply here.     Parking for the 12 unit buildings is provided underneath the building.  A limited amount of parking to the  front of multiplex building 7A is designated as accessible parking.  The remainder of visitor parking  associated with the multiplex buildings is to the rear or sides of the buildings.  Staff considers this criterion  to be met.    (B)(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 adjoining buildings.    Staff considers this criterion to be met.  See criterion (B)(1) for further discussion.    (B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or  building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.    Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines  shall be underground.  Plans submitted as part of this application show underground utility lines are  proposed.     (C)(1) The Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural  characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions  between buildings of different architectural styles.    Staff considers this criterion met.  See criterion (B)(1) for further discussion.     (C)(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.    Staff considers this criterion met.  See criterion (B)(1) for further discussion.     Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South  Burlington Land Development Regulations:    (A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties  whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to  provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in  the area.    Staff considers that no additional easements are needed for this project.      (B) Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground.  Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to  neighboring properties and to the site.    Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 11 11 of 21  shall be underground.  Plans submitted as part of this application show underground utility lines are  proposed.     (C) 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).    Dumpsters serving the proposed multi‐family buildings are proposed to be enclosed with chain link fence  equipped with red slat screening and a chain link gate.    Staff considers this criterion met.  (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements    Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening  shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape  requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development  Regulations.  The cost of the street trees is above and beyond this requirement.      The applicant has provided detailed landscaping plans for street trees and detailed typical landscaping for  duplexes, triplexes, each of the multi‐family buildings, and transformer cabinets and utility pedestals.    The City Arborist provided the following comments to the applicant.       Recommend reducing the number of maples as street trees.  Maples make up nearly 35 % of the  street trees in South Burlington, ideally this would be closer to 20% to maintain species diversity.   Consider substituting ‘Celebration’ or ‘Sienna Glen’ Freeman Maple both of which exhibit  superior structure in my opinion   Recommend substituting a larger tree for the ‘Spring Snow’ Crabapple.  Maintaining necessary  clearance over the road(15 ft.) and bike path(10 ft.) is problematic with smaller stature trees.  In  addition, Spring Snow is highly susceptible to apple scab disease    The applicant addressed the above comments and the City Arborist indicated via email on August 30, 2017  that they were satisfied with the changes the applicant made in response to comments.      The applicant provided a landscape budget for the single, two‐family buildings and three‐family buildings as  well as each of the multi‐family buildings and the street trees.  They did not provide a building construction  costs to evaluate whether the provided landscaping meets the minimum planting costs described in Table  13‐9 of the LDRs.  Approval of the landscape budgets for multi‐building lots is required for site plan review.   Site plan review is an embedded element of subdivision review for multi‐building lots.    8. The applicant is required to submit a building construction cost for the multi‐family buildings to  demonstrate landscape budget compliance with Table 13‐9.    E911 Addresses    The applicant provided E911 addresses on Plan Sheet C1.4.  Staff provided these addresses to the State  E911 coordinator, who provided a few recommended edits.  The applicant has made the recommended  adjustments and Staff considers that the plan is now in conformance with E911 addressing standards.     SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 12 12 of 21  SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT    This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district.  Therefore it is subject to the  provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.    9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts  The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:    A. Height.  (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ‐NRP, SEQ‐NRT, or SEQ‐NR sub‐district  shall not exceed forty‐five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to  occupied structures in these sub‐districts.    (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ‐VR or SEQ‐VC sub‐district shall not  exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures  in these sub‐districts.    In addition, the standards set forth in Appendix C, Table C‐2 – Dimensional Standards Applicable in  All Districts shall apply. The most restrictive limitations shall apply at the time a zoning application is  submitted, and shall apply to the single, two (2) and three (3) unit buildings.     Note that for the multi‐family (4+ unit) structures, Section 3.07(C) & 9.05 (B) provide specific  provisions for projects with Master Plan approval. The applicant has provided architectural elevations  of the proposed multi‐family buildings.  Building 7A and 7B are proposed to be forty feet (40’) in  height.  Staff considers this criterion met.    B. Open Space and Resource Protection.  (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for  creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels    Staff considers this criterion met as discussed above.    (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at the  average densities provided in this bylaw.    Though this particular standard was not in place at the time of master plan approval, #MP‐05‐02  found that development areas are located so as to maximize the aesthetic values of the property in  keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural  areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.  On an overall  basis, the average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub‐district, and coverage is  consistent with the waivers approved as part of the Master Plan except as discussed above pertaining  to two‐family homes.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall  be established by the applicant.     As part of #MP‐05‐02, the applicant submitted an open space and natural area management plan for  the entire subject property.  This document is entitled “South Village – South Burlington, Vermont –  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 13 13 of 21  Community Land Management Plan,” dated November 2004.  Master plan condition #9 stipulated that  the applicant submit a plan for the management and maintenance of the dedicated open spaces  created through the Master Plan prior to final plat approval for Phase 1.  Final plat approval SD‐06‐21,  granted on May 3, 2006, references this plan.    The applicant has provided the following update on the status of implementing the Land Management  plan.    The status of the implementation of the maintenance measures of Land Management Plan is that  restoration work was begun in August 2017.  The South Village Communities Stewardship Fund Board  have contracted with Habitat Restoration Solutions, LLC to perform the restoration work required.   The SVC Bylaws (copy available upon request, also filed in the land records) require that ½ of 1% of all  SVC unit sales are contributed to the South Village Community Stewardship Fund (SVCSF) in  perpetuity.  The SVCSF was established to fund and implement the Land Management Plan.  The  SVCSF Board is effectively managing this responsibility.      (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after  construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on  the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board  may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction  issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.    Staff considers this criterion met as discussed above.    (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or  primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with  the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be  prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is  encouraged.    As discussed above, the applicant has provided a wetland buffer design plan.  Staff considers this  criterion to be met.    C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through  development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans  that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural  operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for  agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐supported agriculture.     The Farm at South Village is located on the western portion of the overall property and continues to be  operated as envisioned.  This standard is satisfied from master plan approval.    D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board  that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of  buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as  depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools,  and sewer and water facilities.    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 14 14 of 21  Staff considers the proposal to comply with the Official Map, which proposes a road and recreation path  in the vicinity of those proposed on the Phase IIIB plan.  The Phase IIIB area contains an area of prime ag  soils and a wildlife corridor.  Development has been laid out to allow continued connectivity of wildlife  corridors with appropriate density.    Condition #23 of master plan approval #MP‐05‐02 states:  The Recreation Path in Phase 3 (the Ridge Neighborhood) shall be constructed when foundations  and building‐related site work are substantially completed for the buildings on the southern‐ most lots in Phase 3. Surety for completion of this portion of the Recreation Path shall be  provided at the issuance of the zoning permit for the 185th market‐rate unit.    9. Because the master plan has been amended so that the recreation path is now located along  Midland Avenue and not along the southern‐most lots in Phase 3, Staff recommends the Board  modify the condition so that the recreation path be constructed at the same time as the Midland  Avenue connection, which is required by condition 12 of MP‐05‐02 to begin construction at the  issuance of the zoning permit of the 185th market‐rate unit and be substantially complete at the  closing of the 205th market‐rate unit or six (6) months, whichever is later.    (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be  designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to  adjacent properties.    (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent  with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant  related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    See the staff comments and recommended items for Board review under PUD standards for a discussion  of recreation paths and sidewalks.     (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection  can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance  between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of  water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.    See above discussion under PUD standards.    E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies  sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for  pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between  neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a  traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or  consultants.    (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.    (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance  standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been  approved by the City Council.  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 15 15 of 21    (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and  neighborhoods shall apply.    See above discussion under PUD standards.    Condition 12 of MP‐05‐02 states that the construction of Midland Avenue must begin at the time the  zoning permit for the 185th market‐rate unit is issued, and that it must be substantially completed at the  closing of the 205th market‐rate unit or six (6) months, whichever is later.      10. There are several proposed dwelling units with addresses on Midland Avenue.  In order for  emergency services to reach an address on Midland Avenue without accidentally going to the Dorset  Farms end prior to the connection being building, staff recommends the Board include a condition  stating that if a unit is constructed on Midland Ave before the connection to the existing segment is  made, the new segment of Midland Ave be temporarily named and numbered as Chipman Street to  allow clarity for emergency services personnel, and that once the connection to the existing segment  of Midland Ave is made, the addresses on the new segment be reassigned to the addressing scheme  shown on the provided E911 plan.    D.  Parks Design and Development.   (1) General standards.  The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park  Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as defined in  the Comprehensive Plan.  Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with  programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.  Such parks are to be  located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free destination for children and  adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the  neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater  surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by  vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.   (2) Specific Standards.  The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐ NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts:   (a)  Distribution and Amount of Parks:   (i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a  variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active  recreation.   (ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of  residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development.   (iii) Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000  population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.   (iv) A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided  within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or  other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.   (b)  Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be  approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by  a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 16 16 of 21  (c)  Design Guidelines  (i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make  them sociable, safe and attractive places.   (ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections.   (iii) To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural  open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to  reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas.   Several parcels of open space are proposed on the project with a substantial network of trails. In  addition, as part of the Master Plan, a future public recreation field was approved near the intersection  of Allen Road and Spear Street.  Applicant and Staff have been working towards construction of the  recreation field pursuant to the agreement with City Council.  The Board found this criterion was satisfied through the Master Plan.    9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards    The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this  Section.    A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern    (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet;  see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must  include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.    (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead  end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length.  Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or  bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section  15.12(D)(4).    Spacing between intersections is generally between 300 and 500 feet.  There are mid‐block crossings  provided at three locations on Midland Avenue spaced at no greater than 500 feet.  However, though  there are roadway intersections, there are no pedestrian crossings provided on Midland Avenue  between station 11+25 and 18+50.     Douglas Street is proposed to be a dead end street and is 400 feet long.  While configuration of the cul‐ de‐sac has changed, the length of Douglas Street was approved as part of the #MP‐05‐02 and therefore  carries forward.  Douglas Street is proposed to serve 24 dwelling units and has a single point of access  onto another roadway.      Staff considers these criteria met.    (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and  connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice  of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged.    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 17 17 of 21  There are no street stubs proposed as part of this application.      (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5  recommended.    The proposed development includes both individual lots for buildings as well as one PUD section with a  shared lot. On average, the homes on the shared lots average a ratio of 2.5:1. Given the desires for  common open space and significant wetland buffers, staff is comfortable with that ratio.    The single family, two family and three family home lots also do not meet the requirement above. The  majority of the lots are in the 1:1 to 1:1.5.  The proposed lots were approved as part of #MP‐05‐02 and  carries forward.     B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards    (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub‐ district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are  safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth  in Tables 9‐1 and 9‐2, and Figures 9‐4 and 9‐5 of the SBLDR.    The applicant has provided road sections demonstrating that the public neighborhood streets are  proposed to be 26‐feet wide, consistent with the standard for local street with on‐sided parking in the  SEQ‐NR district.  The private roadway, erroneously labeled Kingsbury Lane on Sheet C7.0, is proposed to  be 20‐feet wide.  The SEQ‐NR standard for local streets with no parking is 24‐feet.  Staff considers that in  the interest of preserving open space this is acceptable and therefore supports a 20‐foot width for this  roadway. The section of Midland Avenue through the wetland buffer is also proposed to be 20‐feet  wide.  The SEQ‐NR standard for pavement width at wetland crossings is 18‐feet.  In discussion with the  applicant, they indicated that Midland Avenue is proposed to be 20‐feet wide because this is the width  that was approved in the court decision pertaining to Phase IIIB.  Staff considers that this width was  granted as a narrower width than the allowable standard at the time of the court decision and it would  therefore be acceptable to further narrow the road to meet the current standards.  The applicant  additionally indicated concern about an 18‐foot roadway width having curbs.  Staff considers that it is  unlikely that a fire truck would need to place outriggers at the wetland crossing, therefore the presence  or absence of curbs should have no impact on the acceptable road width.  Additionally, there is a  dedicated 8‐foot wide recreation path adjacent to the roadway at the Midland Avenue wetland crossing.   Because there is a separate dedicated pedestrian way, curbs should have no adverse impact on  pedestrian safety at the wetland crossing.  Staff therefore recommends that the roadway be narrowed  to 18‐feet at the wetland crossing.    11. Staff recommends the Board grant a waiver to reduce the minimum roadway width from 24‐feet to  20‐feet for the private roadways.  Staff also recommends the Board require the applicant to narrow  the roadway to 18‐feet at the wetland crossing.      (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum  five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required  on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout  the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve  this purpose.    SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 18 18 of 21  Sidewalks and planting strips meet the dimensional requirements, except at wetland crossings where  the planting strip width has been reduced to reduce wetland impacts.  See discussion above for DPW  comments regarding sidewalk location.    (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)  Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress  shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be  planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than  thirty feet (30’) on center.    Street trees are generally placed at 30‐foot or smaller spacing.  See discussion above for Arborist  approval of the tree selection.  Staff considers this criterion met.      (4) On‐street parking.  Section 9.08(B)(4) states that sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking  shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts.      Staff considers this criterion met.     (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to  slow traffic; see Figure 9‐6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).    See discussion of PUD Condition (A)(9). Staff considers this criterion to be met.    (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided  sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels  should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with  lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest  level consistent with public safety.    Lighting is proposed at intersections with public roads and at the multiplex building parking areas.  Poles  are proposed to be 13‐feet high.  Staff considers this criterion met.    C. Residential Design    (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single  family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto  garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets).    All proposed buildings are oriented to the street. Staff considers this criterion to be met.    (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach.  Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one  building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private  space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.    See discussion of Site Plan Review Standard (B)(1).    (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the  street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty‐five  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 19 19 of 21  feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk.    As part of its Master Plan approval the front setback for both single family homes and multi‐family units  was reduced from 20 ft. to 10 ft.  No such waiver was granted for two‐family homes.  See discussion  above under Zoning District and Dimensional Standards.    (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch,  stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or  other solid materials.    None of the porches, stoops or balconies project into the 10‐foot setback shown on the plans.  Staff  considers this criterion to be met.    (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7. The front building line of  the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet.     This criterion is addressed in the Design Review Standards document provided by the applicant and  discussed under Site Plan Review Standard (B)(1) above.      12. Staff recommends the Board adopt the South Village Community’s Design Review Standards as a  condition of this approval.   (6) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and  affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within  blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of  near‐identical units.     See discussion of Design Review Standards document provided by the applicant and discussed under  Site Plan Review Standard (B)(1) above.       Affordability    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #MP‐05‐02, the applicant received approval for a density  bonus of 65 units, 33 of which must meet affordability criteria in perpetuity.  Without the density bonus,  the applicant has approval to construct 269 units.    As established in Section 18.02D(3), the units must be physically integrated into the design of the  development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and distributed among the  housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the  development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being  better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington.    13. The applicant has indicated that they are developing a proposal for this mix, which they plan to  submit as a master plan amendment in the future.  Staff and the applicant have discussed how to  assure that until and unless the applicant receives approval for a modification under a Master Plan  amendment, that the requirements of 18.02(D)(3) are met. Staff and the applicant have agreed to  recommend a condition in this Phase III preliminary and final plat decision setting a requirement for  six (6) affordable units in Phase IIIB with no more than four (4) units in the multi‐family buildings.  SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 20 20 of 21  Such a limit represents the proportionate number of affordable units in the 60‐unit Phase IIIB when  considered as a fraction of the total 334 developable units.      Phasing    The applicant is proposing to construct Phase IIIB in three phases, with the first phase consisting of  Midland Avenue from the previously permitted culvert crossing to the existing segment of Midland  Avenue on the far side of the wetland, the second phase consisting of the southern roadways, and the  third phase consisting of the multiplex buildings to the north.     14. Staff recommends that the decision include a condition that zoning permits be obtained for all the  units in common clusters A – D within five (5) years of approval with the option for requesting a one  (1) year extension.       OTHER    Energy Standards    Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:  Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.    Bicycle Parking and Storage    The proposed 12‐unit buildings are subject to the short and long‐term bicycle parking standards of  Section 13.14.  The applicant is proposing what appears to be short term bicycle parking near the stairs  in the parking garages under the 12‐unit buildings.  The applicant has provided insufficient information  to ascertain whether the provided bicycle parking meets the standards for short term bicycle parking  spaces.      The applicant has indicated that their proposal for long term bicycle storage is to provide storage  beneath raised lumber and wire mesh storage units for each unit.  This type of storage does not meet  the standards of Section 13.14C(2) requiring “secure storage in bicycle locker, bicycle storage room or  private enclosure outside of the private residence that protects entire bicycle, including components  and accessories against theft and weather.”    15. In discussion with the Applicant, they have indicated that the bicycle storage provided in the garages  for the multi‐unit dwellings meets the standard for short‐term storage and for secure long‐term  storage.  Staff considers that the information provided is insufficient to make this determination.   Staff recommends the Board discuss the short‐ and long‐term bicycle parking standards with the  applicant to ensure clarity and require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the standard  by providing a detail showing the proposed short‐ and long‐term bicycle storage.      SD‐17‐11  Staff Comments 21 21 of 21  RECOMMENDATION    Staff  recommends  that  the  applicant  work  with  Staff  and  the  Development  Review  Board  to  address the issues herein.     Respectfully submitted,    ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    INDEX OF SHEETS:GENERAL NOTES:1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall maintain as-built plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project. 4. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities. 8. If the building is to be sprinklered, backflow prevention shall be provided in accordance with AWWA M14. The Site Contractor shall construct the water line to two feet above the finished floor. See mechanical plans for riser detail. 9. The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for all items and materials incorporated into the site work. Work shall not begin on any item until shop drawing approval is granted.10. In addition to the requirements set in these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards.11. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 feet.12. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be the Contractor's responsibility.13. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within City Road R.O.W. with City authorities.14. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companies requirements.15. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off- site location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw.16. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the item in question.SOUTH VILLAGEPHASE 3BSPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTCIVIL/SITE ENGINEER:CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANESOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403(802) 864-2323OWNER / APPLICANTSOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLCC/O S.D. IRELAND COMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVE.WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495(802) 863-2946LOTTING PLAT OF SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC PHASEIIILOTTING PLAT OF SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC PHASEIIILANDSCAPE PLAN - STREET TREE KEY PLANLANDSCAPE PLAN - STREET TREES WESTLANDSCAPE PLAN - STREET TREES EASTLANDSCAPE PLAN - 12 PLEX ALANDSCAPE PLAN - 12 PLEX BLIGHTING PLAN - STREET LIGHTSLIGHTING PLAN - 12 PLEXESLANDSCAPE DETAILSLIGHTING DETAILS7A BUILDING ELEVATIONS7A BUILDING ELEVATIONS7B BUILDING ELEVATIONS7B BUILDING ELEVATIONSOVERALL PROPOSED CONDITION SITE PLANPHASING PLANEXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLANPROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLANROAD SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGSE911 ADDRESS PLANGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANGRAVEL WETLANDS 1 SITE PLANGRAVEL WETLANDS 2 SITE PLANGRAVEL WETLANDS 3 SITE PLANUTILITY PLANUTILITY PLANUTILITY PLANROAD & UTILITY PROFILEROAD & UTILITY PROFILEROAD & UTILITY PROFILEROAD & UTILITY PROFILEROAD & UTILITY PROFILEROAD & UTILITY PROFILEEPSC PLANEPSC PLANEPSC PLANEPSC EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANEPSC SPECIFICATIONSEPSC SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILSEPSC SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILSEPSC SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILSEPSC SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILSEPSC SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILSROAD SECTIONSROAD SECTIONSSITE DETAILSSITE DETAILSSTORM DRAINAGE DETAILSSEWER DETAILSWATER DETAILSMISC. DETAILSGRAVEL WETLAND DETAILSTRAFFIC CALMING DETAILSSPECIFICATIONSP1P2L-100L-200L-201L-202L-203L-301L-302L-400L-500A201A202A201A202C1.0C1.0AC1.1C1.2C1.3C1.4C2.0C2.1C2.2C2.3C2.4C2.5C3.0C3.1C3.2C4.0C4.1C4.2C4.3C4.4C4.5C5.0C5.1C5.2C5.3C6.0C6.1C6.2C6.3C6.4C6.5C7.0C7.0AC7.1C7.1AC7.2C7.3C7.4C7.5C7.6C7.7C8.0-8.5LEGENDFMEGSTSTW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERFMGSTTWPROPOSED CONTOUR100PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED FENCEPROPOSED GRAVELPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED GUARD RAILPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED FORCEMAINPROPOSED GASPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED TELEPHONEPROPOSED WATERSTREAMPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINESPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDREBAR SETCONCRETE MONUMENT SETPROPOSED HYDRANTPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED UTILITY POLEPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINELEGENDSPEAR STREETALLEN ROADP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:15:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 CEA1" = 50'01243.14P1- Location Map -NOT to SCALEACCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.EMAY 31, 2017South VillageCommunities, LLCPhase IIIMidland AvenueSouth Burlington, Vermont1. Purpose of this plat is to describe and depict the location anddimensions of Lots 101 - 129 of Phase 3 of South VillageCommunities, LLC. Reference shall be made to the ReferencePlats above) for particulars of adjacent lots, lands and streets, andfor details of the perimeter of the property.2. Bearings shown are referenced toGrid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, related to National Geodetic Surveymarks "PG1580", "F 65", "AB9571" and "NE Aiken" established byRTK GPS measurements. Line lengths shown are in feet anddecimals therof.3. A westerly portion of East Jefferson Street has already beenoffered for dedication to the City of South Burlington as shown onReference Plat D.- Reference Plats -A. "DOWNING - CALKINS REVOCABLE TRUST - PLAT OFSURVEY", dated March 23, 2005, by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc. (CEA).B. "PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES, LLC", last revised 2/26/2015, by CEA.C. "PHASE 2 OVERALL PLAT - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES, LLC", last revised 2/22/2016, by CEA.D. "SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Dedication Plat,Portion of East Jefferson Road", dated 5/25/2016, by CEA.E."OVERALL BOUNDARIES - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, INC.", dated 6/30/2016 byCEA.F. "DORSET FARMS - PERIMETER PROPERTY PLAT",dated August 29, 1997, prepared by Lamoureux, Stone &O'Leary Consulting Engineers, .- General Notes -- Legend -Lotting Plat ofDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSITESouth Village Communities, LLCSouth Burlington Vol. 801 Pg. 465Shelburne Vol. 348 Pg. 416RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT _____________ O'CLOCKON THE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON100Grid NorthVCS 1983Note 2TRCTRCTo the best of my knowledge and belief thisplat, consisting of 2 sheets, depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me asdescribed in "Survey Notes" above, basedupon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except asnoted. This plat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403, "Recordingof Land Plats". This statement valid onlywhen accompanied by my originalsignature and seal below.________________________________Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597P:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\01243-Phase 3- Lotting Plat.dwg, 7/14/2017 1:16:41 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 CEA1" = 50'01243.14P2- Location Map -NOT to SCALEACCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.EMAY 31, 2017South VillageCommunities, LLCPhase IIIMidland AvenueSouth Burlington, Vermont1. Purpose of this plat is to describe and depict the location anddimensions of Lots 101 - 129 of Phase 3 of South VillageCommunities, LLC. Reference shall be made to the ReferencePlats above) for particulars of adjacent lots, lands and streets, andfor details of the perimeter of the property.2. Bearings shown are referenced toGrid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, related to National Geodetic Surveymarks "PG1580", "F 65", "AB9571" and "NE Aiken" established byRTK GPS measurements. Line lengths shown are in feet anddecimals therof.3. A westerly portion of East Jefferson Street has already beenoffered for dedication to the City of South Burlington as shown onReference Plat D.- Reference Plats -A. "DOWNING - CALKINS REVOCABLE TRUST - PLAT OFSURVEY", dated March 23, 2005, by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc. (CEA).B. "PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES, LLC", last revised 2/26/2015, by CEA.C. "PHASE 2 OVERALL PLAT - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES, LLC", last revised 2/22/2016, by CEA.D. "SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Dedication Plat,Portion of East Jefferson Road", dated 5/25/2016, by CEA.E."OVERALL BOUNDARIES - SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, INC.", dated 6/30/2016 byCEA.F. "DORSET FARMS - PERIMETER PROPERTY PLAT",dated August 29, 1997, prepared by Lamoureux, Stone &O'Leary Consulting Engineers, .- General Notes -- Legend -Lotting Plat ofDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSITESouth Village Communities, LLCSouth Burlington Vol. 801 Pg. 465Shelburne Vol. 348 Pg. 416RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT _____________ O'CLOCKON THE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON100Grid NorthVCS 1983Note 2South Village Communities, LLCTRCTRCTo the best of my knowledge and belief thisplat, consisting of 2 sheets, depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me asdescribed in "Survey Notes" above, basedupon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except asnoted. This plat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403, "Recordingof Land Plats". This statement valid onlywhen accompanied by my originalsignature and seal.________________________________Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597P:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\01243-Phase 3- Lotting Plat.dwg, 7/14/2017 1:27:31 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 DRDR +366.0 +365.7 +358.2 +365.5+358.5 +365.5 +368.00+365.5 +365.5 +366.0 +367.84 +365.5 +367.50 +361.6 366.4+366.4+ +367.6 367.4+361.6+366.1+ +368.4 +368.4 +368.4+368.4 +366.5 368.4+367.9+ +368.4 370.4+ 370.0+ +370.3 369.3+ 368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0+ 370.4+ +368.4 +367.00 +365.4 +366.50 +367.77 +367.31 2.7%3% 2.5% 2.0%366.80+ +366.50 3.0%2.6%366.5+8.3% 8.3%+366.5 +366.0 2.9% 3.6%2.7%2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7%4.8% 2.7%2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7%4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4% 1.3%DEWEY PLACEFLANDERS LANEFLANDERS LANEALLEN ROAD EASTAIKEN ST. SOUTH JEFFERSON RO A D STREETSLADE STREET ALLEN ROAD EASTNORTH J E F F E R S O N R D . SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D ALLEN RD.W. FISHER LANECATKIN DR.MADISON LANEE. FISHER LANEMADISON LANECHIPMAN STREET SOUTH J E F F E R S O N R O A D SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADFROST STREET SPEAR STREETCHIPMAND D QUIET PATH (TYP.)BIKE PA T H BIKE PA T H BIKE PA T H MIDLA N D A V E N U EDSMDSMACL 1" = 150'01243.14C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495OVERALLPROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLANACESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIBNO DEVELOPMENT AREALIMITED DEVELOPMENT AREAENVIRONMENTAL COURT DECISIONREQUIREMENTS 2-27-0703/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:16:01 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 PHAS E 1 ADRDR FLANDERS LANESOUTH JEFFERSO N R O A D SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D E. FISHER LANESOUTH J E F FERS D D BIKE P A T H BIKE P A T H BIKE P A T HBA MIDLA N D A V E N U E PHASE 1APHASE 1BPHASE 2PHASE 3PHASE3PHASE 1BPHASE 2DSMDSMMAB1" = 80'01243.14C1.0ALOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495PROJECT PHASINGPLANACESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET03/16/17 DSM UPDATED EXISTING CONDITION PLAN07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:17:53 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 FLANDERS LANESOUTH JEFFERS O N R O A D SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D CATKIN DR.FISHER LANE141715285556575960616248AWW W WWWWWWWWW W WWWWWWEXISTINGPEDESTRIAN PATHPREVIOUS OVERBLAST AREALIMITS OF OVERBLAST AREACOMPLETED 200812" D.I. WATER MAININSTALLED 2008CLASS II WETLAND AND50' BUFFER (TYP.)PERMITTED BUTNOT CONSTRUCTEDEXISTINGARCHAEOLOGICALSENSITIVE AREAEXISTING LIMITS OF OFFEROF DEDICATIONEXISTING 12" CULVERTEXISTING CAUSEWAYEXISTING AIR RELEASESTRUCTUREEXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)EXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)DSMDSMACL1" = 80'01243.14C1.1LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495EXISTINGCONDITIONSITE PLANACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 8/30/2017 11:33:25 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 STORMWATERPOND #3+366.0+365.7+358.2 +365.5+358.5 +365.5 +368.00+365.5+365.5 +366.0 +367.84+365.5+367.50+361.6366.4+ 366.4+ +367.6 367.4+361.6+ 366.1+ +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +366.5 368.4+367.9++368.4370.4+ 370.0++370.3369.3+368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0+ 370.4+ +368.4 +367.00 +365.4+366.50 +367.77 +367.31 2.7% 3%2.5%2.0%366.80++366.503.0% 2.6% 366.5+8.3%8.3%+366.5+366.02.9%3.6%2.7% 2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7% 4.8% 2.7% 2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7% 4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4%1.3%FLANDERS LANETH JEFFERSON RO A D SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D CATKIN DR.STORMWATER DRYPOND PERMITTEDUNDER PHASE 3ANEW 10' WIDERECREATION PATHEXISTINGPEDESTRIAN PATHLIMITS OF EXISTINGIRREVOCABLE OFFEROF DEDICATIONNEW BOXCULVERTCONNECTION TOMIDLAND AVEPROPOSEDRIGHTSOF WAYWIDENINGQUITE PATHSYSTEMNEW MULTI-FAMILYBUILDINGSDDNEW QUIET PATHSTORMWATERPOND #2STORMWATERPOND #1NO DEVELOPMENT PER VERMONTENVIRONMENTAL COURT DECISIONFEBRUARY 12, 2007LIMITED DEVELOPMENTPER VERMONTENVIRONMENTALCOURT DECISIONFEBRUARY 12, 2007PRIVATESTREETEXISTING AIR RELEASESTRUCTUREEXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)EXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)STORMWATER DRYPOND PERMITTEDUNDER PHASE 3A8' WIDE FLUSHCURB AND PAVEDAPRONDRDRBIKE P A T H BIKE P A T H PHASE 3APHASE 3BPHASE 3BPHASE 3A10212112212412312512912812612749120119113140'11211110810911010711411511611711810010410510649BIKE P A T HBA MIDLA N D A V E N U E200'49ADSMDSMACL1" = 80'01243.14C1.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495PROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPLANACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIBNO DEVELOPMENT AREALIMITED DEVELOPMENT AREA03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSSEE SHEET C2.0SEE SHEET C2.1SEE SHEET C2.2P:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/27/2017 11:05:46 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +366.0+365.7+358.2 +365.5+358.5 +365.5 +368.00+365.5+365.5 +366.0 +367.84+365.5+367.50+361.6366.4+ 366.4+ +367.6 367.4+361.6+ 366.1+ +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +366.5 368.4+367.9++368.4370.4+ 370.0++370.3369.3+368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0+ 370.4+ +368.4 +367.00 +365.4+366.50 +367.77 +367.31 2.7% 3%2.5%2.0%366.80++366.503.0% 2.6% 366.5+8.3%8.3%+366.5+366.02.9%3.6%2.7% 2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7% 4.8% 2.7% 2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7% 4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4%1.3%FLANDERS LANETH JEFFERSON RO A D SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D CATKIN DR.EXISTINGPEDESTRIAN PATHDDRAISEDCROSSWALKRAISEDCROSSWALKRAISEDCROSSWALKRAISEDINTERSECTIONYELLOW PAVEMENTMARKINGYELLOW PAVEMENTMARKING (TYP.)DRSPEEDLIMIT25R2-124x30SPEEDLIMIT25R2-124x30SPEEDLIMIT25R2-124x30SPEEDLIMIT25R2-124x30YIELDHERETOPEDESTRIANSR1-5a18"X18"STA. 18+87YIELD HERETOPEDESTRIANSSTA. 17+94R1-5a18"X18"30"x30"30"x30"30"x30"30"x30"STA. 18+14W16-7PL24"x12"W16-7PR24"x12"RRFB*RRFB*STA. 18+14W16-7PL24"x12"W16-7PR24"x12"RRFB*RRFB*STA. 6+85STA. 9+50STA. 19+87STA. 18+67W16-7PL24"x12"W16-7PR24"x12"RRFB*RRFB*STA. 18+50W16-7PL24"x12"W16-7PR24"x12"RRFB*RRFB*STA. 17+00DRBIKE P A T H BIKE P A T H STA. 0+95STA. 8+00STA. 5+15PARKINGTHISSTREETR7-1(MOD.)12"x18"R1-5a18"X18"PARKINGSIDE OFBIKE P A T HBA MIDLA N D A V E N U E R1-130x30STA. 8+58D-3D-3D-3R1-130x30STA. 0+33D-3STA.500+25R1-130x30STA.10+44STA. 8+46R7-112x18R7-112x18W5-130x30ANY TIMENOPARKINGSTA.502+94ANY TIMER1-130x30NOPARKINGSTA.501+55STA.15+70W1-1L30x30STA.12+80W1-1R 30x30ROADNARROWSSTA. 25+07STA. 8+58STA.16+58ROADNARROWSW5-130x30D-3STA. 0+60R1-130x30STA. 1+08SIDE OFPEDESTRIANSSTA. 14+56HERESTA. 23+95YIELD PARKINGTOR7-1(MOD.)12"x18"STREETSTA. 18+30STA. 10+75R7-1(MOD.)12"x18"HERETHISSIDE OFR1-5a18"X18"STA. 18+00THISYIELD STREETPEDESTRIANSTOSTA. 8+26SIDE OFSTREETTHISPARKINGR7-1(MOD.)12"x18"SIDE OFSTREETTHISPARKINGR7-1(MOD.)12"x18"DOUBLE SIDED POSTINSTALLATIONDOUBLE SIDED POSTINSTALLATIONDOUBLE SIDED POSTINSTALLATIONDOUBLE SIDED POSTINSTALLATIONDSMDSMACL1" = 80'01243.14C1.3LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495ROAD SIGNAGE &PAVEMENTMARKINGSACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB6' MINIMUM12' MAXIMUM4'8'24"4' MIN30' MAX4" WHITE LINEREFLECTORIZED STOP BAREDGE OF TRAVELED WAYEDGE OF SHOULDER50' MAX.6' MIN."STOP" SIGN* THE 'DESIRED STOPPING POINT" IS THE LOCATION BASED ON SITE CONDITIONSTHAT BEST ALLOWS THE STOPPED VEHICLE TO VIEW THE APPROACHING TRAFFICN.T.S.STOP BAR LAYOUT03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/27/2017 10:29:33 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +366.0+365.7+358.2 +365.5+358.5 +365.5 +368.00+365.5+365.5 +366.0 +367.84+365.5+367.50+361.6366.4+ 366.4+ +367.6 367.4+361.6+ 366.1+ +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +368.4 +366.5 368.4+367.9++368.4370.4+ 370.0++370.3369.3+368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0+ 370.4+ +368.4 +367.00 +365.4+366.50 +367.77 +367.31 2.7% 3%2.5%2.0%366.80++366.503.0% 2.6% 366.5+8.3%8.3%+366.5+366.02.9%3.6%2.7% 2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7% 4.8% 2.7% 2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7% 4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4%1.3%FLANDERS LANETH JEFFERSON RO A D SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D CATKIN DR.EXISTINGPEDESTRIAN PATHDDDRDR200+00501+00BIKE P A T H BIKE P A T H 26+8026+0025+0024+0023+0022+0021+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+0014+0013+0012+0011+0010+009+008+73.108+007+006+005+00 4+00 3+002+001+000+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+004+005+006+007+008+008+92.85201+00202+00203+00204+00204+20.68300+00300+00301+00302+00302+15.42400+00401+00402+77.76402+00500+00 502+00 503+00504+00 BIKE P A T HBA MIDLA N D A V E N U E 9913214212011531313332727930128722526925313412811610699959187753203062622442268954DSMDSMACL1" = 80'01243.14C1.4LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495E911 ADDRESSPLANACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/27/2017 10:30:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 370.4+1.5%PLUNGE POOLT.O.TIMBER=368.3T.O.TIMBER=368.7OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURERIM=373.5INV. OUT=368.018" HDPE W/FESW/ STONE PADINV.=368.7EMERGENCY OVERFLOWELEV=374.112" HDPEINV.=369.8WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTNEW CB#4RIM=364.4INV. IN=360.5INV. OUT=360.415" HDPE W/FESW/ STONE PADINV.=357.5ST NEW CB#3RIM=364.4INV.=360.6NEW CB#5RIM=367.8INV. OUT=364.9NEW CB#8RIM=374.7INV.=370.1NEW 26' WIDE PAVED ROADWITH CONC. CURBSTNEW CB#1RIM=361.3INV.=358.1STORMWATERPOND PERMITTEDUNDER PHASE 3ANEWRIM=INV. INV. UD UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD NEW QUIET PATHCURB RAMP WITHRECESSED CURB. (TYP.)AND DETECTABLEWARNING15" HDPE15" HDPE15" HDPERECESSED CURB (TYP.)5' CONC. SIDEWALK5' CONC. SIDEWALK5' CONC. SIDEWALKTHESE GRADES REPRESENTINITIAL GRADINGREQUIREMENTS UNTIL THEBUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED.SEE SHEET C7.0 FOR FINALSECTION.NEW QUIET PATHPARALLEL PARKING SPACES15"15"15" HDPEUD UD 15" HDPEFLARED ENDSECTIONCONTINUE ANDTERMINATE ATBRIDGE WING WALLUD C.O.UD C.O.UD C.O.UD C.O.UD C.O .FENCE PERDETAIL @SHEET C7.6NEW CB#6RIM=373.9INV. IN=369.5INV. OUT=369.4ST NEW CB#18RIM=375.2INV. IN=371.1INV. OUT=371.0NEW CB#7ARIM=375.0INV. IN=370.9INV. OUT=370.8NEW CB#17RIM=375.2INV. OUT=372.0NEW CB#7BRIM=375.03INV. OUT=371.0NEW CB#7RIM=374.7INV. IN=370.0INV. OUT=369.9NEW CB#6ARIM=374.1INV. IN=369.7INV. OUT=369.6200+00368.6X 501+00UDUD15+0014+0013+0012+0011+0010+009+008+73.108+007+006+00PHASE 3APHASE 3BPHASE 3BPHASE 3AMATCH LINE C2.0MATCH LINE C2.2MATCH LINE C2.1MATCH LINE C2.00+00 1+00 2+00 3+004+005+00201+00202+00203+00300+00300+003400+00401+00402+00500+00 502+00SEE SHEET C2.4FOR ADDITIONALDETAILPOND#212112212412311911311211110810010210410510649xx370.9370.249APARALLEL PARKING SPACESx370.5x370.2x370.5x370.2x370.1368.0X 368.0XDSMDSMACL 1" = 30'01243.14C2.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495GRADING &DRAINAGEPLAN-SOUTHWEST-ACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:35:43 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 CATKIN DR.WW WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW STNEW CB#12RIM=371.4INV. IN=369.1INV. OUT=369.018" HDPE W/FESINV.=367.5NEW CB#10RIM=378.4INV. IN=373.7INV. OUT=373.6NEW CB#11RIM=378.4INV. IN=373.1INV. OUT=373.0EX. 12" HDPE CULVERTINV.=361.32TO BE REMOVED AFTERNEW BRIDGE IS CONSTRUCTEDNEW 20' WIDE PAVED ROADWITH CONC. CURBNEW 5' WIDE BRIDGE SPANX 50' LONGSEE SHEET C7.0END GRADE =361.3±EX. 12" HDPEINV.=360.65NEW 5' WIDE (50' LONG)BRIDGE SPANEND GRADE =361.2±4' WIDE GRASS LINED DRAINAGE SWALE AT LESSTHAN 1% SLOPE4' WIDE GRASS LINED DRAINAGE SWALE AT LESSTHAN 1% SLOPEROAD TAPERS FROM 26' WIDE,AT STA. 7+70, TO 20' WIDE,AT STA. 18+65NEW 26' WIDE PAVED ROADWITH CONC. CURBPROPOSED RIGHTSOF WAY WIDENINGEXISTING HYDRANTNEW CB#13RIM=380.0INV. IN=374.2INV. OUT=374.1NEW CB#14RIM=381.1INV. IN=374.7INV. OUT=374.6NEW CB#16RIM=381.4INV. OUT=375.2NEW CB#15RIM=381.4INV. IN=374.9INV. OUT=374.8UDUDT.O.TIMBER=363.8T.O.TIMBER=363.3PLUNGE POOLNORMAL WATERLEVEL=367.512" HDPEINV.=365.0RIM=368.5INV. OUT=363.2CURB RAMP WITHRECESSED CURB. (TYP.)AND DETECTABLEWARNING5' CONC. SIDEWALKT.O.W.=369.515" HDPEEXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)EXISTING QUIET PATHEXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)UD C.O.UD C.O.UD C.O.UDUDFENCE PER DETAIL@ SHEET C7.610' ELECTRICALEASEMENTx+365.4+363.0+362.0±+365.426+8026+0025+0024+0023+0022+0021+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+00MATCH LINE C2.0MATCH LINE C2.2QUITE PATHQUITE PA T H 5+006+007+008+008+92.85203+00204+00204+20.68300+00300+00301+00302+00302+15.42402+77.76402+00366.5POND#3SEE SHEET C2.5FOR ADDITIONALDETAIL367.5xQUIET PATH12412312512912812612749120119113114115116117118UDUD49Ax363.0x363.0EX. 12" HDPE CULVERTINV.=361.32TO BE REMOVED AFTERNEW BRIDGE IS CONSTRUCTEDNEW 20' WIDE PAVED ROADWITH CONC. CURBNEW 5' WIDE BRIDGE SPANX 50' LONGSEE SHEET C7.0END GRADE =361.3±EX. 12" HDPEINV.=360.65NEW 5' WIDE (50' LONG)BRIDGE SPANEND GRADE =361.2±4' WIDE GRASS LINED DRAINAGE SWALE AT LESSTHAN 1% SLOPEPROPOSEDRIGHTS OF WAYWIDENINGLIMITS OF ALLOWABLE WETLANDIMPACT (1046 S.F.)WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTAREA = 42,612 S.F.+365.4+363.0+362.0±+365.423+0022+0021+0000DSMDSMACLAS SHOWN01243.14C2.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495GRADING &DRAINAGEPLAN-EAST-ACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIBWETLAND CULVERT1" = 20'PARTIAL SITE PLAN1" = 40'SEE PLAN BELOW03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTS09/15/17 DSM REVISIONS PER CITY REVIEW NOTESP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/27/2017 10:31:25 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +366.0+365.7+358.2+365.5+358.5+365.5+368.00+365.5+365.5+366.0+367.84+365.5+367.50+361.6366.4+366.4++367.6367.4+361.6+366.1++368.4+368.4+368.4+368.4+366.5368.4+367.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0++368.4+367.00+365.4+366.50+367.77+367.312.7%3%2.5%2.0%366.80++366.503.0%2.6%366.5+8.3%8.3%+366.5+366.02.9%3.6%2.7%2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%2.7%3.3%2.8%1.4%1.3%SSSSSSSDSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST DFDSTONE LINEDSWALEUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD SEE SHEET C7.6 FOR SECTIONS15" HDPEWATER QUALITYSWALESTSTST4"15" HD PE INV.=360.6INV.=359.7DRDR140'365x365.5364x365.5x365x365.5x365.7x366.0x365.7x366.0364xx363x361x365x364x357.68xx363x362x361xx360359x358x107FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx363x363.9x363x362DSMDSMACL01243.14C2.3LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495GRAVELWETLANDS- 1SITE PLANACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB1" = 15'03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSSTORMWATER NOTES:1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO RUNOFFSHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE BMP'SPRIOR TO STABILIZATION TO ELIMINATESEDIMENT DISCHARGE INTO THE SYSTEM.2. APPLICANT TO REGULARLY MAINTAIN ALLSTORMWATER TREATMENT ANDCONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.09/15/17 DSM REVISIONS PER CITY REVIEW NOTESN.T.S.STORMWATER ACCESS S-009S-009 Fire Access12'SEPARATIONGEOTEXTILE2" TOPSOIL8" GRAVEL SUBBASEUNDISTURBED SOIL ORAPPROVED COMPACTEDGRANULAR FILLREVISED 12/19/2014P:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/18/2017 9:05:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 PLUNGE POOLT.O.TIMBER=368.3T.O.TIMBER=368.7OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURERIM=373.5INV. OUT=368.018" HDPE W/FESW/ STONE PADINV.=368.7EMERGENCY OVERFLOWELEV=374.112" HDPEINV.=369.8STST ST ST NEW CB#5RIM=367.8INV. OUT=364.9UD UD UD UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD 15" HDPESEE SHEET C7.6 FOR SECTIONS8' WIDE BERMTOP ELEVATION 375.1LIMITS OFGRAVEL WETLANDSLIMITS OFGRAVEL WETLANDSSTONE LINED SWALELEVEL SPREADERHYDRAULIC INLET15" HDPEFLARED ENDSECTIONFENCE PER DETAIL @SHEET C7.6NEW CB#6RIM=373.9INV. IN=369.5INV. OUT=369.4NEW CB#18RIM=375.2INV. IN=371.1INV. OUT=371.0NEW CB#7ARIM=375.0INV. IN=370.9INV. OUT=370.8NEW CB#17RIM=375.2INV. OUT=372.0NEW CB#7BRIM=375.03INV. OUT=371.0NEW CB#7RIM=374.7INV. IN=370.0INV. OUT=369.9NEW CB#6ARIM=374.1INV. IN=369.7INV. OUT=369.62" SLOPE TO TIEINTO EXISTINGCONDITIONS368.6X QUIET PATHQUIET PATHQUIET PAT H 121111368.0X 368.0 X12'STORMWATERMAINTENANCE ACCESSPER DETAIL SHEET C2.3FLUSH CURBDSMDSMACL1" = 15'01243.14C2.4LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495GRAVELWETLANDS- 2SITE PLANACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSSTORMWATER NOTES:1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO RUNOFFSHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE BMP'SPRIOR TO STABILIZATION TO ELIMINATESEDIMENT DISCHARGE INTO THE SYSTEM.2. APPLICANT TO REGULARLY MAINTAIN ALLSTORMWATER TREATMENT ANDCONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.09/15/17 DSM REVISIONS PER CITY REVIEW NOTESP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/18/2017 9:05:27 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 STSTNEW CB#12RIM=371.4INV. IN=369.1INV. OUT=369.018" HDPE W/FESINV.=367.5UDUDUDGGGGT.O.TIMBER=363.8T.O.TIMBER=363.3PLUNGE POOLNORMAL WATER LEVEL=367.512" HDPEINV.=365.0RIM=368.5INV. OUT=363.2STONE LINED SWALELIMITS OF GRAVELWETLANDSTONE LINED SWALEMINOR STONELINED SWALELIMITS OF GRAVELWETLANDFLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION= 366 TO 367SEE SHEET C7.6 FOR SECTIONST.O.W.=369.5HYDRAULIC INLET15" HDPESPILLWAY @ 368.5UDUDUDUDUDUDFENCE PER DETAIL @ SHEET C7.62" SLOPE TO TIEINTO EXISTINGCONDITIONSx366.5367.5x364x115116117118x363.0x363.012'12'12'12' WIDE STORMWATERMAINTENANCE ACCESSPER DETAIL SHEET C2.5DSMDSMACL01243.14C2.5LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495ACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB1" = 15'GRAVELWETLANDS- 3SITE PLAN03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTS12' WIDE MAINTENANCE ACCESSELEV=369EDGE OF ACCESS12'MAINTENANCE ACCESSELEV=369.5ELEV=369EDGE OF ACCESS5'QUIET PATH3131STORMWATERPONDSTORMWATER NOTES:1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO RUNOFFSHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE BMP'SPRIOR TO STABILIZATION TO ELIMINATESEDIMENT DISCHARGE INTO THE SYSTEM.2. APPLICANT TO REGULARLY MAINTAIN ALLSTORMWATER TREATMENT ANDCONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.09/15/17 DSM REVISIONS PER CITY REVIEW NOTESP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/18/2017 9:04:59 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 370.4+370.0++370.30.8%1.5%PLUNGE POOLT.O.TIMBER=368.3T.O.TIMBER=368.7WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWSTSTST STW W W W W WWWWWWEXISTING GATEVALVES (3)NEW 8" CL52 D.I.WATER MAINEXISTINGHYDRANTNEW 8" CL52 D.I.WATER MAINUD UDUDGGGUDUDUDUDUDUD GGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSS S S NEW SMH #6RIM=374.5INV. IN=359.5INV. OUT=359.4NEW SMH #7RIM=378.2INV. IN=371.2INV. OUT=371.1SSSNEW SMH #14RIM=376.3INV. IN=365.7INV. OUT=365.6NEW SMH #15RIM=382±INV. OUT=377.0SS S SSNEW SMH #12RIM= 381.5INV. IN=367.7INV. OUT=367.6NEW SMH #13RIM=377.9INV. IN=366.5INV. OUT=366.4NEW SMH #17RIM= 368.5INV. IN=360.7INV. OUT=360.6NEW SMH #16RIM= 371.8INV. IN=360.1INV. OUT=360.0NEW SMH #5RIM=369.2INV. IN=358.0INV. OUT=357.9NEW SMH #4RIM=364.9INV. IN=357.3INV. OUT=357.2NEW QUIET PATHUD UD GGGGETCETC ETCETCETCETC ETCETCETC ETCETC ETC10' ELECTRICALEASEMENT10'MIN.(TYP.)4" SDR 35 PVCSEWERSERVICE (TYP.)NEW HYDRANTASSEMBLY34" TYPE KCOPPER WATERSERVICE (TYP.)NEW HYDRANTASSEMBLYPROVIDE 5' SEPARATIONFROM STORM LINEST ETCETCETCETCETC10' ELECTRICALEASEMENT10' ELECTRICALEASEMENT10' ELECTRICALEASEMENTUDUD368.6X MATCH LINE C3.0MATCH LINE C3.2MATCH LINE C3.1MATCH LINE C3.0WSWSWSWSWSWS2" CLASS 200 PVC177 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN139 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN108 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN276 L.F. 8" P V C S E W E R M A I N188 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN273 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN127 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN126 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN117 L.F. 8" P V C SEWER MAI N135 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN99 L.F. 8 " P V C S E W E R M AI N 115 L.F. 8" PVC SE W E R M AIN SSSSWSSSSSWSSSSWSSSSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSSWS xx370.9370.2STORAGExxx1.4%369.8370.237Sx370.5x370.2x370.5x369.8x370.2x370.1FLUSH368.0X 368.0XDSMDSMACL 1" = 30'01243.14C3.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495UTILITYPLAN -SOUTHWESTACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:41:27 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +366.0+365.7+358.2+365.5+358 . 5 +365.5+368.00+365.5+365.5+366.0+367.84+365.5+367.50+361.6366.4+366.4++367.6367.4+361.6 +366.1++368.4+368.4+36 8 . 4 +368.4+366.5368.4+367.9++368.4370.4+370.0++370.3369.3+368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3 +366.7+366. 0 +370.4++368. 4 +367.00+365.4+366.50+367.77+367.312.7%3%2.5%2.0%366.80++366.503.0%2.6%366.5+8.3%8.3%+366.5+366 . 0 2.9%3.6%2.7%2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7%4.8%2.7%2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7%4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4%1.3%W WWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW EXISTING GATEVALVES (3)EXISTINGHYDRANTEXISTING HYDRANTNEW 8" CL52 D.I.WATER MAINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSNEW SMH #8RIM=385.5INV. IN=379.1INV. OUT=379.0NEW SMH #6RIM=374.5INV. IN=359.5INV. OUT=359.4NEW SMH #7RIM=378.2INV. IN=371.2INV. OUT=371.1SSSSSINV. OUT=362.0NEW SMH #17RIM= 368.5INV. IN=360.7INV. OUT=360.6NEW SMH #16RIM= 371.8INV. IN=360.1INV. OUT=360.0NEW SMH #5RIM=369.2INV. IN=358.0INV. OUT=357.9DSTSTSTD5' CONC. SIDEWALK5' CONC. SIDEWALKGETCETCETC ETC ETCETC ETC ETCEXISTING AIR RELEASESTRUCTURERIM=386.7STNEW HYDRANT ASSEMBLYETCETCETCETCETC10' ELECTRICALEASEMENT10' ELECTRICALEASEMENTNEW SMH #18RIM=INV. IN=INV. OUT=DRDRMATCH LINE C3.1MATCH LINE C3.0MATCH LINE C3.0MATCH LINE C3.2WSSTREAM188 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN17 L.F. 8"WER135 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER MAIN99 L.F. 8" P V C S E W E R M A I N 115 L.F. 8" PVC S E WER MAI N WSSSSSSSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSSWSSWSFDFDFDFDFDFDFDSWSWSWSFDFDFDFDFDFDFDSNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGE230 L.F. 8" PVC SEWER M A I NDSMDSMACL 1" = 30'01243.14C3.1LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495UTILITYPLAN -NORTHWESTACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:42:20 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 xCATKIN DR.WWWWW W WWWWWWWWWWWWW STPROPOSED RIGHTSOF WAY WIDENINGWWWWEXISTING HYDRANTUDUDGGGGGGGGSSNEW SMH #9RIM=388.0INV. IN=381.0INV. OUT=380.9NEW SMH #15RIM=382±INV. OUT=377.0SSSS CURB RAMP WITHRECESSED CURB. (TYP.)AND DETECTABLEWARNING5' CONC. SIDEWALKGGGETCETC ETCLIMITS OF ALLOWABLEWETLAND IMPACT(1046 S.F.)NEW SMH #10RIM=378.6INV. IN=372.1INV. OUT=372.0WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTAREA = 42,612 S.F.EXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)NEW HYDRANTASSEMBLYEXISTING AIR RELEASESTRUCTURERIM=386.7EXISTING QUIET PATHNEW SMH #11RIM=383.1INV. IN=369.9INV. OUT=369.8EXISTINGHYDRANT (TYP.)UDUDETCETC10' ELECTRICALEASEMENTMATCH LINE C3.0MATCH LINE C3.2QUITE PATHQUITE PAT H WS366.5367.5xQUIET PATHSSWSWSSSWSWSSSSWSWSWSSWSSWSWSSSWSWSSUDUDETC ETCETCDSMDSMACL1" = 40'01243.14C3.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495UTILITYPLAN -EASTACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET07/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 8/31/2017 10:49:39 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SCALE 1" = 80'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 80'L-100Landscape Plan - Street Tree Key PlanNO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:48:13 PM SCALE 1" = 30'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL09/01/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 09/01/2017Revised per Staff comments 09/26/20171" = 30'L-200Landscape Plan - Street Trees WestNO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 9/26/2017 4:30:27 PM SCALE 1" = 30'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)NOTE:SEE SHEET L-200 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULErevisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL09/01/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 09/01/2017Revised per Staff comments 09/26/20171" = 30'L-201Landscape Plan - Street Trees EastNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 9/26/2017 4:30:36 PM SCALE 1" = 10'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 10'L-202Landscape Plan - 12 Plex ANO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:48:45 PM SCALE 1" = 10'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 10'L-203Landscape Plan - 12 Plex BNO DEVELOPMENT4P:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:48:55 PM LEGENDPUBLIC ROAD FIXTUREPRIVATE ROAD FIXTUREWALL MOUNTED LIGHT1.00 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)0.50 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)0.20 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)SCALE 1" = 30'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 30'L-301Lighting Plan - Street LightsL3LL3LL3LL3LL3LL3LPATHINT2CURVEINT1LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVE:NAME: DAN CARNEVALE, SPECIFICATION SALESEMAIL: DCARNEVALE@APEXLTG.COMWEBSITE: WWW.APEXLIGHTINGSOLUTIONS.COMPHONE: 860-632-8766NO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:49:05 PM SCALE 1" = 20'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 20'L-302Lighting Plan - 12 PlexesLEGENDPUBLIC ROAD FIXTUREPRIVATE ROAD FIXTUREWALL MOUNTED LIGHT1.00 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)0.50 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)0.20 CONTOUR LEVEL (fc)WMWML5L4L3NOTE: SEE SHEET L-301 FOR LUMINAIRE SCHEDULEAND LIGHTING CALCULATIONSL512PLEX12PLEXNO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:49:16 PM NTSrevisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/2017L-400Landscape Details2" FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NO MORE. DO NOT COVER FOLIAGE.UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL.GROUNDCOVERPRUNE TO REMOVE DEADWOOD & CROSSING BRANCHES.UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND.3 TIMESDIAMETER OFROOT BALLREMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 2/3 OF ROOTBALL. NEVER LEAVE BURLAPEXPOSED ABOVE SOIL. IF CONTAINER GROWN, REMOVE POTCOMPLETELY. LOOSEN ROOT MASS TO PREVENT GIRDLING.AMEND BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVE DEBRIS ANDSTONES.2" EARTH SAUCER.2" FINE CHIPPED, PINE BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO NOT PLACE AGAINSTPLANT STEM.TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SAME HEIGHT AS PREVIOUSLY GROWN.3415GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGTREE PLANTING DETAILSHRUB PLANTINGLAWN & SEEDING AREANTSNTSGENERAL PLANTING NOTES:1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TOSTARTING WORK.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TOCOMPLETE THE PLANTING SHOWN ON ALL DRAWINGS.3. ALL MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE CURRENT ANSIZ60.1.4. NO PLANT SHALL BE PUT INTO THE GROUND BEFORE ROUGH GRADING HAS BEEN FINISHEDAND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUAL.5. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINALGRADE (DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOPOF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE.6. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NOCONTAINER GROWN STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALL ROOT WRAPPINGMATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OFPLANTING.7. WITH CONTAINER GROWN STOCK, THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REMOVED AND THECONTAINER BALL SHALL BE CUT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS.8. THE DAY PRIOR TO PLANTING, THE LOCATION OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE STAKEDFOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUAL.9. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY REQUIRE ALL PLANTS BE SPRAYED WITH AN ANTIDESSICANTWITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER PLANTING. IN TEMPERATE ZONES, ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SPRAYEDWITH AN ANTIDESSICANT AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR FIRST WINTER.10. ALL PLANT BEDS MUST HAVE A MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH OF 18" WITH A 2/3 TOPSOIL TO1/3 COMPOST MIX. REMOVE SUBGRADE AND OTHER FILL IN PLANTING AREAS ON SITE.11. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER DETAILS AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS.12. STAKING PLANTS IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR. ONLY STAKE PLANTS ASSPECIFIED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.13. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AMENDED BACKFILL AS PER THE CONTRACTSPECIFICATIONS.14. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED THOROUGHLY TWICE DURING THE FIRST 24 HOUR PERIODAFTER PLANTING. ALL PLANTS SHALL THEN BE WATERED WEEKLY, IF NECESSARY, DURINGTHE FIRST GROWING SEASON.15. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FORADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.16. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE PLANT LIST FOR SEASONALREQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE TIME OF PLANTING.2"-3 FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NO MORE. DO NOT COVER FOLIAGE.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS.18" MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH CONTAINING 2/3 TOPSOIL AND 1/3COMPOST MIX.UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL.6PLANT BEDLAWNEDGE LAWN PER PLAN, 1" REVEAL MAXNTSNTSNTSSpacing 'D' Row 'A' Number of Plants Area Unit6" O.C. 5.2" 4.611 SQ. FT.8" O.C. 6.93" 2.610" O.C. 8.66" 1.6612" O.C. 10.4" 1.1515" O.C. 13.0" 7.3810 SQ. FT.18" O.C. 15.6" 5.1224" O.C. 20.8" 2.9130" O.C. 26.0" 1.5536" O.C. 30.0" 1.254' O.C. 3.46' 7.25100 SQ. FT.5' O.C. 4.38' 4.616' O.C. 5.2' 3.28' O.C. 6.93' 1.810' O.C. 8.66' 1.1612' O.C. 10.4' 81000 SQ. FT.15' O.C. 13.0' 520' O.C. 17.3' 2.8825' O.C. 21.65' 1.8530' O.C. 26.0' 1.2940' O.C. 34.6' 7.22 10,000 SQ. FT.DDDAPLANT SPACING CHARTO.C. = ON CENTERTREE PROTECTION NOTES:1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, ALL TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES MUST BEIMPLEMENTED.2. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS.3. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL REMAIN INTACT THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.4. PRIOR TO THE SITE VISIT ALL TREE PRESERVATION AREAS SHALL BE STAKED OUT ON SITE BYSURVEY.5. NO MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED, STOCKPILED OR OPERATED WITHIN TREEPROTECTION AREAS.6. TREE PROTECTED AREAS WILL BE LEFT AS NATURAL AS POSSIBLE.7. THE CONTRACTOR CHOSEN FOR THIS WORK WILL BE AN EXPERIENCED TREE SERVICE FIRM THATHAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED TREE PROTECTION, ROOT PRUNING, AND TRIMMING WORK, SIMILARTO THAT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.8. IN AREAS OF EXCAVATION NEAR TREE, IDENTIFY AND CUT ROOTS IN CONSULTATION WITH OWNER.9. REMOVE POORLY ATTACHED AND RUBBING LIMBS. CLEAN THE CROWN OF DEAD, DISEASED ANDWEAK LIMBS. THINNING OF HEALTHY LIMBS IS NOT RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME.10. ANY NECESSARY TRENCHING SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BACKFILLED WITH REMOVED SOIL OR OTHERHIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL.11. AN AIR SPADE IS TO BE USED TO EXCAVATE DOWN TO MINIMUM OF 2', SEE DETAIL 8B/L200.12. THERE WILL BE NO EXCAVATION FOR PROPOSED SITE WORK WITHIN FENCED AREA.12" MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH CONTAINING 2/3 TOPSOIL AND 1/3COMPOST MIX.ADD TERRA-SORB CRYSTALS/GEL TO HELP RETAIN MOISTURE IN SOILAPPLY 1 LB. PER 100 SF OF SOIL6" MINIMUM PLANT BED DEPTH CONTAINING2/3 TOPSOIL AND 1/3 COMPOST MIX.UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOILPLANT SPACING CHART7PLANT SPACING CHART DETAILNTS2TREE PLANTING ON SLOPE DETAILNTS3 2" X 2" HARDWOOD STAKES 1/3 HEIGHT OF TREE OR MIN. OF 72". ALLOW FORA DEPTH OF 12" BELOW UNDISTURBED GRADE. (STAKING TO BE REMOVED ONEYEAR AFTER PLANTING.) INSTALL STAKES PLUMB.ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE(DUE TO NURSERY PRACTICES, THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOILFROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE).2"-3" FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLYAGAINST TRUNK.2" EARTH SAUCER.AMEND BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVE DEBRISAND STONES.PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES.USE WIDE BELT-TYPE TREE TIES; DO NOT USE ROPE OR WIRE IN HOSE SLEEVES.REUSABLE PERFORATED PLASTIC TREE WRAP (TO BE REMOVED ONE YEARAFTER PLANTING).3 TIMESDIAMETER OFROOT BALLSCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4".CUT & REMOVE ALL OF THE WIRE BASKET, EXCEPT THAT WHICH ISUNDER THE ROOT BALL. LEAVE NO BURLAP EXPOSED ABOVE THE SOILSURFACE. REMOVE BURLAP FROM THE TOP 2/3 OF ROOT BALL IF BURLAPIS MADE OF NATURAL FIBER. IF BURLAP IS PLASTIC OR TREATED, CUTAND REMOVE ALL BUT THAT WHICH IS UNDER THE ROOT BALL.3 TIMESDIAMETER OFROOT BALL3 - 2" X 2" HARDWOOD STAKES 1/3 HEIGHT OF TREE OR MIN. OF 72". ALLOWFOR A DEPTH OF 12" BELOW UNDISTURBED GRADE. (STAKING TO BEREMOVED ONE YEAR AFTER PLANTING.)ROOT FLARE SHALL BE PLANTED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINAL GRADE (DUE TONURSERY PRACTICES, THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING SOIL FROM THE TOP OFTHE ROOT BALL TO LOCATE THE ROOT FLARE).2"-3" FINE CHIPPED BARK MULCH, NOT MORE. DO NOT PLACE MULCHDIRECTLY AGAINST TRUNK.SCARIFY SUBGRADE TO 4".AMEND BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED, BREAK UP CLODS AND REMOVEDEBRIS AND STONES.PRUNE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES.USE WIDE BELT-TYPE TREE TIES; DO NOT USE ROPE OR WIRE IN HOSESLEEVES.REUSABLE PERFORATED PLASTIC TREE WRAP (TO BE REMOVED ONEYEAR AFTER PLANTING). USE IF NECESSARY.2" EARTH SAUCER.CUT & REMOVE ALL OF THE WIRE BASKET, EXCEPT THAT WHICH ISUNDER THE ROOT BALL. LEAVE NO BURLAP EXPOSED ABOVE THE SOILSURFACE. REMOVE BURLAP FROM THE TOP 2/3 OF ROOT BALL IF BURLAPIS MADE OF NATURAL FIBER. IF BURLAP IS PLASTIC OR TREATED, CUTAND REMOVE ALL BUT THAT WHICH IS UNDER THE ROOT BALL.EXISTING GRADE9TREE PROTECTIONROOT PRUNING TRENCH MIN 2' DEEP, SEE BLOW UPTRENCH DETAIL B ABOVE.TREE PROTECTION FENCE PLACED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK, CURB, OR 1'BEYOND DRIP LINE OR FURTHER, IF POSSIBLE.DRIP LINE OF TREERETENTION AREA2" STEEL OR WOOD POSTHIGHLY VISIBLE FLAGGINGORANGE MESH SNOW FENCE8" WIRE "U" TO SECURE BOTTOM OF FENCEMAXSECURE FENCE TO HORIZONTAL 2"X4" ALONG TOPFENCE NOTES:1. THIS FENCE SERVES AS A TREE PROTECTION DEVICE ONLY.2. ROOT DAMAGE SHALL BE AVOIDED WITHIN FENCED AREA.3. FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.10TREE PROTECTIVE FENCENTSNTSSIGN DETAIL1. ATTACHMENTS OF SIGNS TO TREES IS PROHIBITED.2. SIGNS SHOULD BE MADE OF VINYL OR PLASTIC.3. SIGNS SHOULD BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED, PENALTIES WILL BE ENFORCED FOR REMOVAL OF SIGNS.4. AVOID INJURY TO ROOTS WHEN PLACING POSTS FOR THE SIGNS.5. SIGNS SHOULD BE POSTED 50' O.C. AND WITHIN 20' OF THE BEGINNING AND END OF EACH FENCE TO BE VISIBLE TO ALL CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL.6. SIGNS TO BE SECURELY FASTENED TO THE FENCE OR FENCE POSTS.7. SIGNS TO HAVE A WHITE BACKGROUND AND ORANGE OR RED TEXT.ANCHOR POST MUST BE INSTALLED TO A DEPTH OF NO LESS THAN 1/ 3OF THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE POST.SIGN, SEE DETAIL B ABOVE.ROOT PRUNING TRENCH NOTES:1. USE AN AIR SPADE TO DIG THE 2' TRENCH AND EXPOSE THE ROOTS.2. EXPOSED ROOTS SHOULD BE CUT WITH A SAW OR LOPPERS TO MAKEA CLEAN SMOOTH CUT, NOT TORN OR RIPPED.3. MULCH EXPOSED ROOTS DURING THE CUTTING PROCESS TO KEEPFROM DRYING OUT.4. BACKFILL TRENCH WITH MIXTURE OF TOPSOIL AND COMPOST.1'1'CLEAN CUTEXPOSED ROOTSIN TRENCHAIR SPADE TO BE USEDTO DIG 2' TRENCHTREE ROOTS8TREE PRUNING ILLUSTRATIONNTSFIRST CUTCUT AT ANGLE TO THE BRANCH COLLARSECOND CUTFINAL CUTBRANCH COLLARTREE PRUNING NOTES:xREFER TO ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 PRUNINGSPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.xWORK SHOULD BE PREFORMED BY A CERTIFIEDARBORIST OR PROFESSIONAL TREE COMPANY.xAVOID DAMAGING BARK AND OTHER LIVING TISSUETHROUGHOUT THE PRUNING PROCESS.xMAKE SURE PRUNING TOOLS ARE SHARP.xMAKE CLEAN CUT AS CLOSE TO THE BRANCH COLLAR ASPOSSIBLE. DO NOT LEAVE A STUB.xREDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BRANCH FOR A BETTER CUT.xTHE FIRST AND SECOND CUTS SHOULD BISECT THEANGLE BETWEEN ITS BRANCH BARK RIDGE AND ANIMAGINARY LINE PERPENDICULAR TO THE BRANCH ORSTEM.xNOT MORE THAN 25% OF GROWTH SHOULD BE REMOVEDFROM A CANOPY DURING A GROWING SEASON.4' HT.13 TOTAL HT.8'L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400L-400LOOSEN SUBGRADE BY DRAGGING TEETH OFTHE BUCKETSOIL COMPACTION AFTER INSTALLATION SHALL BE 75-250 PSI AT SOILMOISTURE BETWEEN FIELD CAPACITY AND WILTING POINTLOOSEN SUBGRADE BY DRAGGING TEETH OF THE BUCKETSOIL COMPACTION AFTER INSTALLATION SHALL BE 75-250 PSI AT SOILMOISTURE BETWEEN FIELD CAPACITY AND WILTING POINTFOR USE WHEN PLANTS ARESHOWN EQUIDISTANT FROMEACH OTHER (AS SHOWN)P:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Details Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:49:27 PM AS NOTED1LIGHT FIXTURESSCALE: NTS2LIGHT POLESCALE: NTS3WALL MOUNTED LIGHTSCALE: NTSL-500L-500L-500revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/2017L-500Lighting DetailsSEE LIGHTING PLAN FORLUMINAIRE SCHEDULEP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Details Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:49:34 PM 1 Marla Keene From:Stuart and Delia Mowat <delistu@msn.com> Sent:Monday, September 18, 2017 11:53 AM To:ray; Marla Keene Subject:South Village Phase 3 SD-17-18 etc. Attachments:South Village Original PLan as of august 3 2017.jpg; South Village Master Plan Concept A 7-27-17.pdf Good afternoon again Mr. Belair and Ms. Keene,    As recommended by Mr. Miller, chair of the DRB, we are restating our thoughts on the proposals for Phase 3 of  the South Village development, prior to Tuesday night’s meeting of the DRB.       We live in Preserve Rd, in Phase 2 of the South Village Development.     Our specific request is that the DRB delay any decision on Phase 3 of the development until the board has had a  chance to look at the Phase 3 proposals in the context of the significant changes that the developer has planned for  phases 1 and 2, described by the developer as Master Plan changes.  We think that this delay is even more appropriate  in the light of the need for the developer to put forward a plan for affordable housing in the development that should  encompass all phases of the development and all types of housing in it.      The changes proposed for Phases 1 and 2 are opposed by many residents, opposition which could potentially be  mitigated by changes to Phase 3.  Making a final decision now, or in the near future, on Phase 3 only, would reduce the  flexibility to remedy potential problems in those proposed Master Plan changes.      Our issue with the new proposals for Phase 1 and 2 is the replacement, in Phase 2, of 7 single family homes with  three “multiplexes”.   These multiplexes are buildings which have 6 town houses at the front and 6 town houses at the  rear, for a total of 12 in all.   I have attached a site plan of the original proposals, called “South Village original plan as of  August 3 2017”.   I am also attaching the proposed new Master Plan that was revealed to residents on August 3rd, so you  can see the changes.  Our particular concern is in the areas labelled “C” and “D”, where the developer is now proposing  to replace the 7 single family homes with three 12‐plexes.    Our objections are threefold:  1. Positioning: The positioning of these multiplexes in area “C”  is such that it does not match the overall  ambience of the development. All other multiplex buildings have been placed sympathetically at the  perimeter of the development.  These two buildings will loom over the homes on the west side of North  Jefferson Road, to the detriment of those homes, and will seriously detract from the look and feel of the  farm lot, which is such a large part of the character of the development as a whole. They will also increase  traffic and parking in the center of the development. And, if the behavior of the existing multiplexes is  continued, there will be bright lights shining from them all night, disturbing the closest residents.    2. Inequitable: The assigning of what would now be five multiplexes to Phase 2 is inequitable. Here are the  statistics:   there would be 36 town homes in Phase 1 out of 149 homes (24%);  60 town homes in phase 2  out of a total of 125 homes (48%);  and 24 town homes in Phase 3 out of 60 homes (40%).   If it is necessary  to build ten multiplexes, then it would be more equitable to distribute them in a ratio of (for example) 4:3:3  across Phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively.   3. Misrepresentation: All of the purchasers of homes in Phase 2 through August 3rd 2017 were led to believe  that there would be 7 single family homes on lots “C” and “D”.  To make radical changes such as these after  the fact amounts to misrepresentation and should not be permitted.    2   Thank you very much for listening.  If you would like to further understand our issue, we would be very happy to  come in to your office at a time that suits you, to discuss it.    Stuart & Delia Mowat  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:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐17‐21 1580 Dorset Street—Cider Mill II Sketch    DATE:    October 3, 2017   Development Review Board meeting      JJJ South Burlington, LLC, has submitted a sketch plan application for Cider Mill II, consisting of 154 dwelling  units on 65.49 acres. At the September 19 Development Review Board hearing, the Board requested that Staff  obtain a legal opinion on the Board’s ability to impose conditions on the Cider Mill II project as they pertain to  locations within Cider Mill I.      With the exception of the unbuilt segment of Cider Mill Drive and Sommerfield Avenue, the City has taken  possession of all of the streets and their rights‐of‐way within Cider Mill I.  The City further has received  irrevocable offers of dedication for the unbuilt segment of Cider Mill Drive and for Sommerfield Avenue, which  it has the ability to accept in order to facilitate improvements on these roads (but would typically not accept  until after they are completed).      The applicant requested to meet with the Natural Resources Committee and the Bike/Ped Committee.  The  applicant will be meeting with the Natural Resources Committee on October 4th and the Bike/Ped Committee  on October 11.     Legal opinion on the matters requested is as follows (questions from the Board in blue, responses from the City  Attorney in green).    1) Whether the DRB has the authority, during its review of Sketch Plan #SD‐17‐20, to recommend the  applicant, JJJ South Burlington, LLC, include it its development a plan to construct a portion of Cider Mill  Drive that is currently unconstructed in the City’s right‐of‐way?    Yes. This recommendation/condition would have a clear nexus to the project as it could  alleviate traffic impacts of the proposed development and is proportional to the project size.  Any objection by the applicant that this is off‐site and not within its authority or control is  resolved once the City accepts the offer of dedication and thereafter can assign its interest  temporarily to applicant for site control. It is worth nothing that prior to accepting that portion  of the road, the City may need to jump through a few hoops such as obtaining a partial release  from a lender as the Cider Mill I property was at one point subject to a mortgage interest.      2) Whether the DRB has the authority, during its review of Sketch Plan #SD‐17‐20, to recommend that  applicant, JJJ South Burlington, LLC, include in its development a plan to extend a recreation path  through the Cider Mill I development to connect with Dorset Street?   2   Yes. There is a similar analysis as above, however, the essential nexus to the project is less  obvious but enough to recommend particularly in sketch plan.     3) Whether the DRB has the authority, during its review of Sketch Plan #SD‐17‐20, to recommend the  applicant, JJJ South Burlington, LLC, include in its development a plan to provide more open space in  Cider Mill I?     No, because the applicant could successfully object that it has no ability to obtain the site  control necessary to satisfy this condition as proposed. However, in researching this I learned  that a few years ago the City entered an agreement with the Cider Mill I developer to leave  certain portions of the project that were proposed for development, undeveloped. I do not  have a copy of the agreement, but my understanding is this included open space in the wildlife  corridor.    The applicant has indicated that they would like to present some ideas for modifications of the development  plan to address some of the Board’s concerns that were raised at the September 19th meeting at the October  3rd meeting.  A potential reconfigured layout is included in the packet.    Staff has had limited opportunity to review the modified materials and so at this time cannot make any detailed  recommendations or analysis of permissibility.  However, Staff notes that the revised configuration for Aurora  Road, while increasing contiguous neighborhood park land, does not meet the requirement in Section 9.09  limiting dead end streets to 200‐feet unless constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection.   Staff considers that there are alternative configurations, such as a shorter loop, multi‐unit buildings on a shared  driveway, or a shorter dead‐end street, which may be permissible and achieve some of the applicant’s goals.   Multi‐unit buildings with up to six (6) dwelling units are allowed in the SEQ‐VR district.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 September 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; K. Cubino, J. Darling, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, C. Ruggiero, K. Braverman, M. Sperry, P. Judge, W. Woolfrey, K. & N. Van Woert, C. Chamberlain, T. Bissonette, L. Demaroney, D. & S. Mowat, E. S. Emery, T. Barritt, J. Goodwin, C. & E. Forcier, E. Milizia, L. Nadeau, S. Dopp, S. & J. Jewett, T. McKenzie, C. Snyder, E. Grover, B. Doucevicz 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-17-18 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four two-family dwellings, 3) two three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings, 1840 Spear Street: It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance to 3 October. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-18 to 3 October 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 2 6. Appeal #AO-17-03 of Century Partners, LP and Thirty-Three Mary Street, LLC, appealing the issuance of site plan application #SP-17-29 for the construction of a 58,551 sq. ft. fur-story mixed-use building which includes 39 residential units, 146 Market Street: Mr. Belair stepped down because the appellant is appealing his decision. Mr. Conner took his place during the hearing. Mr. Miller read the legal requirement and the list of “interested parties.” No other parties sought “interested party” status. Mr. Miller noted that there is now an order representing an agreement between the parties. The Board is being asked to approve that order. Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing and to approve the order as proposed. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-17-22 of Edward G. Hoehn, III, to subdivide a 10.29 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 7.98 acres, 1700 Dorset Street: Mr. Grover said they will honor the request to change the trees to a more salt-tolerant species. The pump station will be private and they will seek approval from the city. There is a slight discrepancy in lot sizes with the surveyor’s numbers. They will correct the plans to show the surveyor’s numbers. The applicant is requesting that there not be a condition that there be only single-family units. This is in a zone where there is supposed to be clustering. Ms. Keene said the request is that there not be more than single family lots without additional approvals. The other option is to continue to provide additional information. Mr. Grover said they will comply with the request to add 4 inches of topsoil during construction. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 3 They are requesting to waive the condition regarding water and waste water until the zoning permit is requested. Staff is OK with that. Staff is requesting that the 2 new buildings not be identical. The applicant agrees to this. The applicant also agrees not to use pesticides near the wetland areas. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-22. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-17-20 or JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots, 54 two-family dwellings, and 30 three-unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Currier said this project was presented last November. The 6-month period to apply for preliminary plat has elapsed, so they are re-applying. Mr. Currier showed the original Phase I and Phase II plans and indicated the 5-acre adjacent Nadeau property which has been added to the original property. He indicated a wildlife corridor with more open space and also a loop road that was originally a cul-de-sac. There will be a secondary entrance through the wetland to the southwest. Mr. O’Leary then showed where the row of duplexes was added and also “blocks” of green area. He noted that they haven’t been able to reach an agreement for the Nadeau property, so that will be dropped from the plan. He did show where 13 other units would have been on the Nadeau land. Mr. O’Leary said the access road into the development will be a public road. The access from Hinesburg Road has to be installed before more than 50 units are built. There will also be an access through Cider Mill I. Ms. Keene showed the Master Plan originally approved and noted differences from this plan including open space areas. She also noted the gap in Cider Mill Road. Mr. O’Leary said they don’t intend to fill in that gap unless there is further development. Ms. Keene then showed the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 4 plan approved in November along with the current plan. She noted there are 4 units in what had been the middle open space and 8 units in what had been the upper open space. Ms. Keene reminded the Board that in 2002 there was a study of wildlife corridors which led to an Open Space Plan. She showed that plan and indicated priority conservation parcels. She noted that in the past, the Planning Commission has expressed an interest in connectivity of open spaces. She expected that the current connections will be OK. Regarding density, Ms. Keen indicated the density of various areas and noted what is possible with the use of TDRs. She also noted that the applicant has submitted legal documents regarding the purchase of TDRs. Mr. Kochman asked if Phase I and Phase II are combined for density. Mr. Belair said they are. Mr. O’Leary added that Cider Mill I used some of Cider Mill II’s land for development. Ms. Keene said the Master Plan was amended to show that. Mr. Kochman asked if it is OK to have all the roads in Cider Mill I being used as the access to Cider Mill II. Mr. Belair said that is how the plans were approved. Mr. Baer said he didn’t see people using this as a shortcut from Hinesburg Road to Dorset Street when people would probably prefer Cheesefactory Road. He stressed that he would like to see the “unconnected” road being connected. Ms. Keene said that is not in the current development area. Mr. Wilking noted that ultimately it is all one project. Mr. Behr asked about a plan for developed park land for recreation use. Mr. O’Leary said it is their intent to leave space as “lawn.” He showed those spaces including a community garden space. He said that the Parks & Recreation Department said they wanted it maintained as just open space. Mr. Behr suggested walking paths around those spaces so they don’t seem so much like people’s backyards. Mr. O’Leary said they will continue to have discussions with Parks & Recreation regarding open spaces. Mr. O’Leary then reviewed the history of wetland access that was given to John Belter. He indicated that stone that was placed in the wetland will be removed. Mr. Currier indicated a hedge which will be saved and one which can’t be saved. Mr. Miller referred to a letter received from Karen Cubino requesting that Cider Mill Road be extended before there is any further development. She also requested a left turn lane into the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 5 development and a 10-foot rec path to connect Cider Mill I and II. Mr. Currier said the plan is to build a rec path along Nadeau Crest Drive. There is no plan to continue it to Sommerfield. Mr. Goodwin of the Bike/Ped Committee said they want any connection to be able to handle bike traffic. They would prefer a rec path to a sidewalk. Mr. Wilking agreed. Mr. O’Leary showed the route of the current rec path. In order to connect to the south they would have to cross the wildlife corridor. Mr. Wilking said this is the only opportunity to make the connection. Mr. O’Leary said there are planned connections but not through this property (e.g., through Dorset Park). Mr. Kochman noted that Ms. Cubino did not indicate where she wanted the 10- foot rec path. Mr. O’Leary said there is an easement for a path. He showed where that is. Mr. Kochman asked if individual lots will be sold. Mr. O’Leary said that is possible. Mr. Kochman said he believes they must maintain a 5-foot side setback which is not waivable until the LDRs are amended otherwise. Mr. Miller also referred to a letter received from Ted Riehle asking for a berm between his property and the development property. He noted that the original owner had “nodded his head” about this and he now wanted confirmation this will happen. Mr. Currier indicated the location on the plan and said they will consider it. Mr. O’Leary said they are willing to do the work and build the berm on the Riehle property if Mr. Riehle will get the needed permits. Mr. O’Leary said they do not propose to extend Cider Mill Road at this time. It would go right through a wildlife corridor. The left turn into the property is already a requirement for Cider Mill I based on a traffic count which is required every two years. Mr. Belair said there is no provision to construct the road. The adjacent property owner would build it as part of any development. Mr. Behr said this was a strange approval compared to what the DRB normally does, but he felt the Board’s hands were tied. Mr. Wilking felt it was one property and they were adding on to the original development. Mr. Belair said the developer of Cider Mill I is not a party to this development. Mr. Wilking felt they are doing this wrong. Mr. Behr felt they need to get a legal opinion before making a decision. Mr. Belair said he will look into getting that. Mr. Behr felt they should give direction regarding a rec path connection. Mr. Wilking preferred to defer to the Bike/Ped Committee. Mr. Kochman said he preferred not to see bikes in the street. Mr. O’Leary noted there is no connection shown to Cider Mill I on the rec path plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 6 Regarding east-west connectivity, Ms. Cubino said she understood that a “highway” is not desired. Her concern for extending Cider Mill Road is that there are so many kids playing in the road on the side streets. There is no rec path that continues beyond Cider Mill Road, and kids ride their bikes in the road. She felt the extension of Cider Mill Road is important for kids’ safety especially as there are no parks in the development for kids to play in. Ms. Van Woert, a resident on Sommerfield, noted that wildlife is not confined to the open space areas. She showed where they appear to go and felt that they wildlife corridor is being pinched in too much. She said that from Wheeler Park to Shelburne Pond, this is the only “pinched off” area. She also noted that with trees coming down, there will be no canopy left. She felt the Natural Resources Committee should be consulted about this. She also understood the need for connectivity but wants to see more “zig zags” in the road. Mr. Darling felt the missing piece of Cider Mill Road should be constructed. He said the curve is not slowing people down; it is actually speeding them up. He suggested speed bumps for a quieter road. Mr. Woolfrey disagreed. He did not want to see a “straight shot” all the way through but wanted to slow traffic down. Ms. Altbee said that with more houses, traffic on Cider Mill Rd. has increased. People can’t bike in the street. She felt that with more units, cars will have a problem getting onto Dorset Street. She said this was too many people for the neighborhood to handle. Ms. DeMaroney said the speed of cars on Cider Mill Road is dangerous for people crossing the road. She noted that a 25 mph speed limit doesn’t slow people down. Ms. DeMaroney also asked whether a road could be built through a wetland. Ms. Keene said that if the wetlands people can find sufficient mitigation elsewhere, that can happen. There is also a city process. Mr. Jewett said that right-of-way at the south end of Sommerfield Avenue does not go through the wetland or the wetland buffer. It goes between the wetlands. He also said that since the Arrowwood study, the real wildlife corridor has been ignored. Ms. Milizia, Co-Chair of the Natural Resources Committee, asked the developer not to ignore that committee. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 7 Mr. Barritt echoed wildlife concerns. He noted there is no fencing on the solar installation to allow wildlife movement. He hoped the Board could get input as to how many units should be in the “squeeze” point. He also felt the Board has the opportunity to provide for a rec path that comes all the way into Cider Mill I. He cautioned the Board not to repeat previous mistakes. Mr. Barritt noted that when the solar operation is gone, that area will someday be residential and asked what connections are provided. He felt that “open space” should be park space, not “backyard” space. He said there is an opportunity to leave a large amount of open space and not have it broken up into “slivers.” Ms. Dopp of the South Burlington Land Trust said the Trust feels the wildlife piece is very important. It is a very narrow “squeeze.” She also said that when Cider Mill I was built, there was a different mindset regarding road widths. She felt the roads should be narrower so they don’t seem like boulevards. She thought this was a huge number of units. Mr. Miller said that up to 600 units are legally buildable here, and this will be only in the 300’s. Mr. Baer said this is Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) zoning, and phase 2 is actually in 2 zones. He felt they haven’t spent much time talking about density. He felt this is just “clumps of different housing types.” This is no mix among them, and this doesn’t speak to diverse development. He also felt Mr. Barritt raised a good point regarding connection to the solar installation piece. Mr. O’Leary showed a potential connection to the solar piece. Mr. Kochman noted that density turns on the feeling that Cider Mill I and II are all one project. Mr. Behr felt it met the density either way. Mr. Woolfrey cited a difference between the 2 developments. He felt there should be another connection between Cider Mill I and II. Ms. Keene stressed the city’s objective of east-west connectivity. Residents asked why it had to be there. Mr. Behr said any east-west connector will break up the wildlife corridor. Mr. O’Leary said Cider Mill Road was to be 18 feet wide instead of 22. Ms. Cubino said narrower roads result in issues getting out when roads have snow on them. Mr. Belair noted that 18-foot roads are allowed when they cross a wetland. Mr. Kochman asked if would be in the Board’s discretion to weigh the advisability of connectivity or whether they are free to “balance” other concerns against the desire for connectivity. A resident asked what criteria the Board uses to approve a plan when something wasn’t in the original plan. Mr. Miller said they use the LDRs, wetland restrictions, traffic studies, etc. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 8 Kochman felt that almost every traffic study done by a developer says “it’s fine,” and that it’s a “losing proposition for the opposition.” Mr. Wilking said that was a very one-sided view as almost every study comes up with proposed solutions (e.g., turn lanes). Mr. Bissonette asked about the piece at the top of Royal Drive. Mr. Belair said that is rec path and emergency vehicle access because there isn’t a second access with more than 50 units. Mr. Bissonette said he would prefer a connector road to be the same thing, not a high velocity road. Mr. Behr said this project was approved as a 2-phase project. There are currently 109 units approved in Cider Mill II. If they weren’t changing the layout, they could build today. He added that he would not now approve the emergency connection between I and II. He also stressed that the city wants higher density housing. The Board has to look at the “planned character of an area.” He also noted this development includes added density from areas that will be preserved. A resident noted that years ago residents said they wanted the SEQ to remain rural but nobody listed to them. She didn’t trust developers or the Planning Commission anymore. Ms. Dopp noted that 15 years ago, there were “two red bars” across the top with very dense development and a large park in between. She said all that disappeared. Mr. Van Woert said he didn’t think there was anyone in Cider Mill I who didn’t know that Cider Mill II was coming in. The issue is the changes from when they were told would happen. Mr. Wilking said it was clear from the start that the area at the top was to be Village Residential Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: a. Reduction of width of Russet Road to 18 feet. Mr. Belair said this can be reduced with a recommendation from Public Works. Members were OK with 18 feet. b. Evaluation from the Agency of Transportation regarding acceleration lane is warranted. Mr. O’Leary said they haven’t heard yet from the AOT. c. Question of which side of the street for the sidewalk on Lindamac St. Mr. O’Leary said they felt their choice connected better with open space. They had no objection to moving it to the other side. Ms. Keene said the developer’s point is well taken. d. Regarding open space amenities, Mr. O’Leary noted that Parks and Recreation wanted more open space, a mowed area. Mr. Wilking felt there are a lot of small, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 PAGE 9 barely usable spaces. He wanted to combine spaces to a valid park. Other members agreed. e. Regarding easements, Mr. O’Leary said they will discuss these with Parks and Rec as well. f. Regarding residential design requirements, Mr. O’Leary said they acknowledge these. They will also look at a mix of housing. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-20 until 3 October 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0 9. Minutes of 5 September 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 September as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: There was no other business discussed though Mr. Kochman said he had the same issue. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:28 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date