Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/02/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 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. O’Leary, B. Currier, M. Provost, D. Penar, G. Kyasa, B. Darling, J. Darling, K. Cubino, P. Meyendorff, P. Meyendorff, L. Nadeau, L. DeMaroney, B. Dousevicz, D. Marshall, L. Breese 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 final plat application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road: Mr. Miller stated that the Board had entered into deliberative session and reached a conclusion on whether to allow the beginning portion of the roadway to be reduced to 20-feet without further input from the interested parties listed in the judgement order. He stated that the Board would allow it. Ms. Keene read suggested language that the Board had agreed upon to allow clearing of trees for the purposes of turf health with site plan approval of the Administrative Officer and/or City Arborist. Mr. Marshall indicated acceptance of this modification. Mr. Miller noted that the Board wanted to change the last sentence of the proposed condition to allow replacement of removed trees with trees of the same genus or as recommended by the City Arborist. The purpose of this is to allow diseased trees to be replaced by trees of species not subject to the same diseases. Mr. Marshall indicated acceptance of this modification. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant had met with the neighbor, Mr. O’Leary. Mr. Marshall stated that they had not. They intend to discuss with the neighbor the location of the trees to remain and the proposed home, but is not proposing at this time to relocate the home. Mr. Marshall noted that the applicant would like to move the foundation drain on lot #86 to off of lot #86 so that lot #86 is not encumbered by an easement, and that the applicant would like to have this as a condition of approval. The Board agreed to make this a condition of approval. Mr. Marshall stated that the applicant intends to create a homeowner’s association for management of the trees. The HOA would include only the ten new homeowners. The Board agreed to make this a condition of approval. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-28. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Master Plan application #MP-17-02 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved master plan for a 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment consists of revising the roadway layout in Phase II (Cider Mill II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Cota disclosed that he is a resident of Cider Mill on Winesap Lane. Mr. O’Leary described the changes made to the proposed development since sketch plan. Mr. Miller noted that the NR district was originally planned for future development as part of the master plan. At the Board’s request, Mr. O’Leary clarified what the archaeologically sensitive area means. This area has been identified as needing Phase III assessment in order to be built upon. Instead of doing a Phase III assessment, the applicant has opted to keep development out of this area. Ms. Keene noted that the requested waivers are in order to provide approval for the previously approved master plan waivers, which the Board is OK with. Mr. Darling expressed concern about the roadway extension and traffic study, and asked if it was better to discuss as part of the master plan hearing or the preliminary plat hearing. The Board said the preliminary plat hearing. Mr. Meyendorff expressed concern about the location of the road connecting to Cider Mill II. He thinks it is too close to his house. He also expressed concern about the narrowing of the wildlife corridor - even with houses removed there is still a park and a storm pond and a fence and is concerned that the corridor will be too close. Ms. Kinard expressed concern about making a barrier for wildlife passage - can the remainder of Aurora Road be also narrowed to 18 feet? This would also discourage it as being a cut-through. Mr. O’Leary stated that the roads in cider mill II are 24 feet or 26 feet if there is parking, and that the applicant isn't necessarily opposed to making Aurora Road narrower for the whole stretch to the first unit. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-17-02 to 6 February 2018. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary plat application #SD-17-29 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units. The 142 units will consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in two (2) family dwellings, and 30 units in three (3) unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Keene noted a correction to the project description. There are no three unit multi-family dwellings proposed, the 30 units are to be single family dwellings on a shared lot. Mr. Kochman asked if the single family dwellings on a shared lot will own the area under the home. Mr. Dousevicz said they will not, they will be on common land. As the Project is the same as was discussed under item #6, Mr. O’Leary felt that no introduction was needed and moved directly to review of staff comments: The Board is OK with all requested waivers. Mr. O’Leary represented that a raised road is needed in order to allow installation of a gravity sewer instead of a pump station, which the City typically prefers. Road along Lindamac will need to be raised 5-6 feet. Mr. Kochman asked if there is any view impact. Mr. O’Leary said there is not. Members are in general in agreement with the approach. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant would like the condition to just be that they have to purchase TDRs prior to issuance of zoning permits rather than showing the option prior to final plat approval. Mr. Belair clarified that the Board typically requires them to demonstrate where they come from because the Board is the only authority eligible to transfer them & secure the ability to obtain them. With the understanding that they don't have to purchase them, the applicant is OK with this. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with the staff comment regarding water & wastewater allocations. Mr. O’Leary noted that in non‐buffer open space, they're proposing an open space management plan which will be part of the HOA agreement. The applicant has not yet prepared this plan, but they plan to. The applicant also feels that they're respecting the open space to the extent feasible. Ms. Keene indicated that the stormwater ponds need to be fenced for liability purposes. Everyone agrees that this is a bad thing for wildlife but perhaps the option could be a split rail fence which would be less of an impediment. Mr. Miller asked if the applicant would be OK with incorporating the recommendations of the natural resource committee as conditions of approval. Mr. O’Leary said that they would be for some of them. Specifically, the recommendations they're not OK with incorporating are conditions relating to the boardwalk since it won’t be built, establishing a fund, making Aurora Road one lane, making the connection between Cider Mill I and II for emergency vehicles only, and establishing a separate critter crossing under Aurora Road. The crossing under Aurora Road attempts to limit fill while allowing free passage of water. The applicant is OK with making the remaining recommendations a condition of approval. Members were OK reducing the width of the connector roadway to allow maintenance access to the stormwater pond. Mr. O’Leary noted that they are fine with previous condition #25 requiring the applicant to reassess the Hinesburg Road (VT 116)/Cheesefactory Road intersection before the 26th dwelling unit is constructed and pay a ‘fair share’ impact fee to the City of South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total cost of the improvement. He also noted that they are OK with removing condition #26 as staff recommended, which requires the applicant to reassess the northbound left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest intersection prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 50th and 100th dwelling units. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with staff comments on site plan review, electric and telecom, home design, wetland demarcation and water & wastewater allocation. Mr. O’Leary said that the landscape budget numbers need to be updated, a budget needs to be provided, and they're planning to provide typical landscape costs. Mr. Dousevicz said they're not proposing footprint lots anywhere, duplexes or carriage homes. Ms. Keene said they had received comments from the arborist, which she will send to the applicant. Mr. O’Leary agreed to incorporate the comment. Mr. O’Leary indicated they'll be letting homeowners know about right‐to‐farm. The applicant is intending to leave the hedgerow. Mr. O’Leary indicated that it is up to the HOA to decide if they want additional amenities in the parks ‐ they're finding that HOAs remove amenities. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with demarcating the open space with either a split rail fence or boulders. The Board indicated they’d prefer to limit the amount of demarcation to just by the homes. Mr. Wilking asked if there can be a path to the open space & that the HOA agreement require it to be mowed so that the limits of mowing be the demarcation. The applicant is in agreement with a path. Mr. Kochman further suggested giving the parks names as a way to make them more park-like. The applicant is OK with submitting an open space maintenance agreement. Mr. Wilking asked about parking next to the community garden. Mr. O’Leary indicated there would be on‐street parking next to the community garden. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with staff comments on tree spacing & light spacing. Mr. O’Leary said they will adjust road widths to be 26 feet wide anywhere homes face the street. There are pedestrian bump-outs in the existing approval for 109 units. They eliminated them on this plan thinking that’s what DPW wants to see. They're fine with narrowing down if that's what the City wants to see. The City wants to see them. Mr. Behr noted that carriage types 3 and 4 are too similar. The applicant agreed to revise these. Mr. Behr also noted that the duplex are too similar, especially considering that they're all grouped into the same portion of the development rather than mixed with the single family. Mr. Kochman asked if the homes can be less clustered. Mr. Dousevicz responded that mixed units are harder to sell, also that the roads would have to be reconfigured to allow mixing. Regarding home setbacks, Mr. O’Leary noted that with the required sidewalk and green space, they don't want to move the single family homes on shared lots closer to the road because the effective minimum driveway length would be 28 feet, 23 feet if set back 25 feet from ROW. Members were OK with the homes being 30 feet from ROW. Mr. O’Leary noted that the 10' rec path contributes to the homes along Aurora Road being unbalanced. Applicant is proposing to relocate the rec path to be cross country and reduce the path width along the road to a five foot sidewalk, which would smooth out the unbalanced nature of duplexes. Members are in favor of the path through the open space and replacing with a sidewalk along the road. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant will provide building widths relative to garage setbacks and that they will provide documentation on the sizing of the culvert crossings. Members then discussed the traffic study. Mr. O’Leary noted that 37% of trips from Cider Mill II would travel through Cider Mill I. Cider Mill II will increase PM Peak trips on Winesap from 62 to 109 vehicles per hour, which is not uncommon or considered to be high traffic on local streets. Mr. Kochman considered that the assumption that 37% of traffic from Cider Mill II will go through Cider Mill I seems incorrect. Mr. O’Leary noted that this assumption is substantiated by the census data. Members consider that the biggest traffic consideration is Van Sicklen Road. Mr. Wilking emphasized that there should be a southbound right turn lane on Hinesburg Road for vehicle safety & also sees the merit of the argument in favor of making the Cider Mill Road extension. Members in general agree that a right turn lane on Rte. 116 into development would provide the greatest benefit and recommends the applicant speak to Vtrans about it. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is against the Cider Mill Road extension because of wildlife corridor, and is pessimistic that the wetland program would allow it. He considers that 109 trips on Winesap is still light traffic Mr. Currier noted that the reason for Aurora Road being in Phase I is based on needing to connect utilities through Cider Mill I. The applicant is amenable to going back to the Phase I as proposed in most recent sketch plan (Nadeaucrest and carriage homes first) and just building the utilities first without the road. Public comments were then received. Ms. Cubino stated that she is interested in seeing Cider Mill Road extended. She retained a transportation engineering firm (RSG) and asked them to look at the data from L&D & give an opinion on the information they've provided. The firm recommended that as much as 60% of traffic will be going to the west based on a map of where people work in this region. Mr. O’Leary asked if the distribution is Chittenden county people or just South Burlington people. Ms. Cubino considers that the 109 vph on Winesap is unsubstantiated in the traffic study. She presented alternatives for constructing Cider Mill Rd. extension with traffic calming measures - 18 feet wide, speed bumps. Ms. Cubino noted that residents of Cider Mill I were sold their homes with the understanding that extension would be built. She provided alternative suggestions of reducing width to 18 feet or making the connection as emergency vehicle connection only. She considers that the east west connection will be very desirable for people connecting wanting to connect from Hinesburg Road to Dorset Street. Mr. Meyendorff asked why the bike path connects to the bike path in Cider Mill I. Mr. Wilking noted that this is our one chance to have a bike path built & support the City's goal of bike path connectivity. Mr. Meyendorff clarified that he is interested in seeing the bike path aligned to connect to existing bike path. Ms. DeMaroney asked about trip generation. Ms. Keene stated that one trip per unit is what was used. Ms. DeMaroney considers that the population increase since 2000 invalidates the use of the 2000 census data, and considers that trip generation ignores the fact that there are additional trips for other purposes other than commuting. Mr. Kyasa noted that he has seen a traffic increase in the last 2 years Ms. Apenar spoke in support of the letter from Katherine VanWoert, who was unable to attend. She sympathizes with Winesap traffic concerns but considers that the Cider Mill Road extension will create more of a cut-through and building the extension would switch traffic from Winesap to Sommerfield. She prefers a narrower connection between Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II with landscaping to mitigate impacts. Ms. Apenar requests that the park that is in the northwest corner be eliminated to improve wildlife corridor, and that things that are not parks be unmowed and remain natural. After some discussion, members were amenable to removing the northwest park. Ms. Meyendorff asked if the rec path be located on the other side of Aurora Road? Mr. Bresee suggested moving the rec path adjacent to Aurora Road at the beginning where it connects to Sommerfield, and suggested using boulders instead of split rail for maintenance purpose. He stated that he is in favor of the mid-block pedestrian connection to Aurora Road for many reasons. Members asked if the bike path can be reduced to 8 feet between Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II. Ms. Keene suggested that the Bike Ped committee be asked if they're ok with it through this section if the road is also narrowed to 18 feet. Ms. Smith recommended that if the bike path is adjacent to the road, there be some sort of barrier between the rec path and the road. Members then discussed the potential Cider Mill Rd extension. Mr. Kochman and Mr. Behr felt that is should be connected. Mr. Wilking felt it should be connected 70%, and not connected 30%. Ms. Smith and Mr. Cota feel 50%/50% on it. Mr. O’Leary reminded members that the City has to accept the road in order to require its connection. Mr. O’Leary noted that they have approval for the 109 units, the Dorset Street turning lane is expensive, Cider Mill Rd extension is expensive, and with this potential extension it's getting to be a question of math. They've agreed to many improvements, and at some point, requiring them to do one more thing, they're going to have to go back to 109 units plus some section of village residential. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-29 to 6 February 2018. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 19 December 2017: Mr. Parsons name was removed from the list of attendees. Under the South Village Request for Reconsideration item, a sentence was corrected from “They would have to spread around already built “regular” units.” to “They would have to be confined to only the unbuilt area rather than spread around.” Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 December as amended. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. 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 10:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on 6 February 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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-17-28 Golf Course Road – JAM Golf, LLC Final Plat DATE: January 2, 2018 Development Review Board meeting JAM Golf, LLC has submitted an application for final plat to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres. At the December 19, 2017 hearing, the Board indicated that there were two (2) topics that needed additional attention. A summary of the status of each of these two (2) topics is as follows. 1. The Board decided they needed to deliberate on the issue of whether trees removed for golf course maintenance purposes need to be replaced on a caliper by caliper basis. This deliberation has yet to take place. Prior to the last meeting, staff communicated with the applicant regarding preservation of trees outside of the 10 single-family lots but within the limits of the trees to be retained and removed on sheet L-2 of the landscaping plan. The extant Tree Preservation Handbook addresses preservation of trees within the 10 single- family lots, but does not address what procedures should be followed for trees outside of those lots. The applicant agrees that the intent is to preserve the area within the detailed tree survey on sheet L-2 as a densely wooded area. In order to clarify this intent, staff recommended the following condition and includes an updated provision reflecting the discussion at the last meeting requiring trees removed for golf course maintenance to be replaced on a caliper by caliper basis. The tree preservation plan referenced in the condition imposed by the September 11, 2009 V.R.C.P. 58 Judgement Order is supplemented for the areas outside of the individual lots by the following condition. The Project is intended to remain densely wooded outside of the limits of clearing described in the Tree Preservation Handbook. Vegetation within the outer boundary as generally depicted on the detailed tree survey shown on Sheet L-2 of the landscaping plans must be managed to preserve the character of the area in accordance with best management practices, which are acknowledged to evolve over time. Trees subject to this condition must not be removed except to meet the goal of maintaining a healthy and densely wooded area overall, as determined by a qualified consulting arborist. Trees exempt from this condition include trees with a diameter of 4-inches or less, trees listed as invasive species, trees that pose an immediate danger due to structural integrity and potential impacts to a home, trees that are dead, and trees that are diseased in a manner that threatens their continued viability. Determination of whether a tree is subject to this condition must be made by a qualified consulting arborist. Trees that grow to a diameter of 4-inches after this approval shall become subject to this condition. Failure to adhere to this condition will require the applicant to replace the tree(s) removed on a caliper by caliper basis with trees of the same genus of at least 2” caliper each. 2 The applicant is requesting some modifications allowing tree removal for the health of the surrounding golf turf, which staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant after they have deliberated and come to a consensus. 2. The Board and the applicant have agreed to reduce the width of a portion of the road. The remaining issue is for the applicant to determine that all the “interested parties” agree to this change, and confirm that they have agreed or are no longer “interested parties”. The applicant has provided a revised plan showing the roadway narrowed to 20-feet from Golf Course Road to the first horizontal curve, and then widening through the horizontal curve to 24-feet. Staff and the Department of Public Works has reviewed this plan and see no issues with the revised layout. The Applicant is attempting to obtain approval of the change from interested parties. City legal counsel advises that since the judgement order represents a contract between the interested parties and does not have an associated expiration, if the interested parties do not agree to the change that the road should not be narrowed. 1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD_17_29_1580 Dorset St & 1699 Hinesburg Rd_JJJ_Cider  Mill II_Prlim_2018‐01‐02.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: December 29, 2017  Plans received: December 6, 2017  1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road  Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐17‐29  Meeting date: January 2, 2018  Owner/Applicant  JJJ South Burlington, LLC  21 Carmichael St., Suite 201  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Engineer  O’Leary Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Dr.  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐R1580, 0860‐01731, 0860‐01625_R  SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,  SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection  65.49 acres      Location Map        2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Preliminary plat application #SD‐17‐29 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258  unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project  and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units in Phase II and 291  overall. The 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in two (2) family dwellings,  and 30 single family units on shared lots, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road.    PERMIT HISTORY    In 2007, the applicant obtained master plan approval for 109 dwelling units in Cider Mill II, with the area  zoned as Village Residential reserved for future development (MP‐07‐01).  In 2015, the applicant obtained  final plat approval for this same development (SD‐15‐11), which was subsequently amended in 2016 (SD‐ 16‐01).  due to revised wetland boundaries.  In 2016, the applicant came before the Board for sketch plan  review of an expansion to 167 units (SD‐16‐27).  That sketch review has since expired and the currently  proposed layout differs substantially from that plan.  In September of this year, the applicant came before  the Board for sketch plan review of a revised layout which included 154 units, including a loop road in the  Village Residential zone (SD‐17‐20).  The current application represents a revision of that layout including  a reduction to 142 units, replacement of the loop road with a cul‐de‐sac, consolidated open space areas,  and improved rec path connectivity.    CONTEXT    Applicant has previously been approved for 109 housing units in Phase II.  In this application, they are  proposing to develop on the northernmost portion of the Cider Mill property, which had previously been  left aside for future phases.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as  Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.    A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  This development (Cider Mill I and II) received the following dimensional standards waivers from the  Board as part of the Master Plan (#MP‐07‐01):   Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft.   Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%   Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%   Multi‐family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%   Multi‐family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%   Multi‐family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet   Multi‐family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet    The applicant has indicated on the provided plans what the maximum building coverage will be on each  of the single family lots, and has shown a building setback line.  While the exact homes to be constructed  on each lot is not determined, the proposed single family homes all fall within the previously approved  waivers.  There are no multi‐family homes currently proposed.  However, the applicant has requested that  3  the previously approved multi‐family waivers be applied to two‐family homes.  Side yard setbacks are met  without reliance on waivers.      Staff recommends the Board approve the waiver request to apply the previously approved multi‐family  waivers to the two‐family homes.    In order to avoid the need to install a sewer pump station and force main, the applicant is proposing to  raise a section of Lindamac Street by as much as five feet, and then grade the surrounding topography so  that it transitions smoothly to meet existing prior to the wetland buffer.  The homes, which will be 26 feet  high from the base of the structure to the midpoint of the roof, are proposed to be placed on the new  grade, resulting in some cases in a height greater than the allowable height of 28 feet measured from pre‐ existing grade.    As part of this preliminary plat application, the applicant will be requesting that the Board make the  determination on whether to grant permission for alteration of an existing grade, and with that alteration,  whether to establish the new grade as preconstruction grade under section 3.07 Height of Structures.   This will allow the new grade to be the measurement point for building height, which will result in the  structures  meeting  the  required  height  standard.    This  process is typically done as a stand‐alone  miscellaneous permit application, but Staff has determined that the request can be combined with the  current application as they are inextricably linked.  Staff anticipates receiving this request as part of this  continued application.      At this time, Staff recommends the Board discuss the building heights with the Applicant as needed to  understand the proposal.    Though the proposed building heights will require an alteration of existing grade permit in order to meet  the zoning district’s height standard, the Applicant is proposing to meet the allowable number of building  stories, summarized in the table below.    Table 1: Number of Building Stories  SEQ‐NR Allowable Proposed  Stories facing street 2  2  Stories below roofline 3  2 to 3, see discussion of  heights above  SEQ‐VR Allowable Proposed  Single and Two‐family stories facing street 2  2  Single and Two‐family stories below roofline 3  2  Multi‐family stories facing street 3  2  Multi‐family stories below roofline 3  2      B) MASTER PLAN  The property is presently subject to a Master Plan and this project will require an amendment to that plan.   All items related to the Master Plan amendment are discussed in the Master Plan Staff Comments.      C) DENSITY  4  The SEQ‐NR and the SEQ‐VR districts allow 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of  Development Rights (TDRs).  The acreage involved in the entire Cider Mill Development (Cider Mill I and  II) is 161.59 acres, therefore the development has 193 units of inherent density and 646 units of maximum  density.  Cider Mill I included 149 units, therefore 44 units of inherent density remain.  As part of the  Master Plan approval, the Applicant submitted the legal documents pertaining to the option to purchase  development rights for Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II for review by the City Attorney, up to a maximum of  326 units.  The development rights must be purchased by the Applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits  for any units beyond the 44 remaining of the property’s inherent density.  Therefore, as presented in this  application, the Cider Mill II Project will need 98 TDRs.     The Applicant represents that they have secured 72 units of density from the Auclair Farm based on 60.8  acres at a rate of 1.2 units per acre.  Therefore the Applicant needs to secure an additional 26 units of  density.  The Applicant has not yet provided a proposal for the additional 26 units of density.    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the Applicant their plan for obtaining additional TDRs, and  require as a condition of approval that the documentation of the AuCclair TDRs and the remaining 26 TDRs  be submitted prior to final plat approval.    D) PHASING  The Applicant has submitted a phasing plan showing four phases of development.  The phasing plan takes  into consideration the LDR’s prohibition on greater than 50 units accessed via a single access point.    E) 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.     The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 109 units in July of 2015.  The Applicant is  currently proposing 142 units, therefore needs allocation for an additional 33 units.    Staff recommends the Board require the Applicant to demonstrate that they have obtained preliminary  water supply and wastewater allocations prior to final plat approval.    (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 Applicant has obtained a state construction general permit (permit no. 3144‐9020.2) for Cider Mill 2,  which expires May 29, 2020.  The permit addresses a 35.6 acre area encompassing 109 housing units.  The  Applicant will need to amend their state permit to address the additional disturbance associated with housing  units in the Village Residential zone.  Staff notes that the state construction general permit prohibits discharge  of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site.  Staff considers that the provided plans do not  show final proposed grading beyond the limits of the roadways and thus it is difficult to know whether the  proposed measures will provide sufficient erosion protection.  Staff notes that the City has the authority to  5  enforce violations of the stormwater & sewer ordinance, specifically pertaining to illicit discharges, should the  Project result in sediment migrating beyond the limits of the construction site.      (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent  unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.    The  Applicant  has  submitted  a  traffic  impact  assessment  and  a  traffic  addendum,  both  prepared  by  Lamoreaux & Dickinson.  The Director of Public Works has reviewed  these studies and has requested  additional information pertaining to directional distribution methodology and several adjoining intersections  for which information was not provided.  Comments on the traffic impact assessment, traffic addendum and  supplemental technical memorandum are discussed under criterion A(9) below.     (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.    As discussed pertaining to Article 12 below, the Project design minimizes wetland impacts.  The Open Space  Strategy identifies a north to south wildlife corridor located south of the Project and oriented between Cider  Mill and Cider Mill II.  Cider Mill and the Master Plan pertaining to Cider Mill II were permitted before the  Open Space Strategy was developed and thus did not take it into consideration.  At the narrowest point, the  wildlife corridor is 188‐feet wide between the rear of a home on Sommerfield and the edge of Stormwater  Pond C.  The stormwater pond will likely need to be fenced, therefore could not be considered part of the  wildlife corridor.  Staff considers that the proposed layout, in particular Stormwater Pond C and Stormwater  Pond B and dwelling units 83‐86 fail to strengthen gaps between existing open space to develop a network  or system.  However, the parcels which are the subject of this application were not explicitly identified as  parcels to be conserved, protected, and/or managed as Open Space.    Staff recommends that that Board discuss with the Applicant the goals of the Open Space strategy inasmuch  as they can be incorporated into revisions necessitated by comments on other elements of the design such as  stormwater or traffic.    Further, Staff recommends that in order to protect the wetland and associated buffer areas, the Board  include the following condition which shall also 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.    (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the  area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is  located.     The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as principally residential with between 11 and 50 units in the  SEQ‐VR zone and between 51 and 100 units in the SEQ‐NR zone.  Staff considers this criterion 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.     During preliminary plat review, the Board expressed concern about how the open space areas were going to  be demarcated as public spaces rather than as extensions of the backyards of adjacent homes.  There is no  6  evidence on the provided plans that the Applicant has provided any delineation between the open space and  the proposed homes in any of the three northern open space areas.  The two southern open space areas are  delineated from the home lots by landscaping and roads.    Staff recommends the Board require the Applicant to provide demarcation at the boundaries of open space  areas to prevent the open spaces from becoming extensions of the adjacent back yards.    (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that  adequate fire protection can be provided.    The Deputy Fire Chief has not yet reviewed the plans.  Staff will provide Deputy Fire Chief’s comments to the  Board when available.     (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have  been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to  adjacent landowners.    The  Assistant  Stormwater  Superintendent  reviewed  the  project  plans  and  supporting  stormwater  computations on December 21, 2017.  The applicant provided responses on December 27, and the Assistant  Stormwater Superintendent responded on December 28, 2018.  The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent’s  comments and a Staff summary of the status of each comment follows.    Marla,    The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Cider Mill ‐ Phase II” site plan prepared by O’Leary‐Burke Civil  Associates, dated 10/5/13 and last updated on 12/8/17. We would like to offer the following comments:    1. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1  acre of land.  It will therefore require an operational stormwater permit and construction permit  from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division.   Status:  This comment has been addressed.    2. The project proposes to impact class 2 wetlands and their buffer. These impacts are only allowed  in conjunction with issuance of a wetlands permit by the Vermont DEC. Has the Applicant  received a wetland permit for the proposed project?  Status:  The applicant has indicated that the State Wetlands Program has reviewed and  approved the proposed changes to the previous wetland permit and the Assistant Stormwater  Superintendent has requested documentation of this approval.    3. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre or more of impervious surface, the  project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs.   Status:  This comment has been addressed.    4. The Applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(1) of the City’s Land  Development Regulations (LDRs) are met.   a. If infiltration of the Water Quality Volume is not feasible, the Applicant should provide  justification, in accordance with §12.03(D)(1)(d) of the LDRs. Please provide any soil  borings or test pits to confirm D soils on site.   7  Status:  This comment has been addressed.    b. For POI D, the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the City’s LDRs §12.03(C)(2).   Status:  This comment is outstanding and may require modifications to the stormwater  treatment practices.      c. For POI E, the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the City’s LDRs §12.03(C)(2).  It appears that an underground storage system is provided for treatment of POI E, but is  not referenced in the narrative and there is no supporting documentation indicating that  the treatment standards are met for POI E.   Status:  This comment has been addressed.    5. All easements should say “Proposed Stormwater Easement…”  Status:  This comment has been addressed.    6. Storm drains proposed to be taken over by the City will require a 20’ easement, centered on pipe,  free of structures or obstructions, minimizing wetland and buffer impacts. Insufficient easements  may prevent the City from taking ownership of infrastructure at a future point in time. The City  does not accept easements over storm lines serving yard drains.   Status:  This comment has been addressed.    a. In scenarios were one easement is shown over two pipes, please amend the easement so  that it extends out 10’ from the center of each pipe.    Status:  This comment has been addressed.    7. The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) indicates that a 12’ wide maintenance  access should be provided (for all ponds) in order to facilitate equipment access for maintenance  of stormwater ponds (section 2.7.1.F). Insufficient maintenance access may prevent the City from  taking ownership of infrastructure at a future point in time.   Status:  This comment is outstanding.  The applicant has indicated that to comply with this  comment, they will request that the Board approve narrowing the segment of Russett Road  between Liberty Lane and Lindamac Street to 18‐feet for it’s entire lengths.  Staff supports this  request.      a. Pond A:   i. Maintenance access should be provided such that any stormwater easement is  outside of the wetland buffer. A minimized wetland impact is allowable for the  outlet pipe.   Status:  This comment is outstanding.    ii. The 600’ outfall pipe from the outlet structure should be significantly reduced in  order to minimize wetland impacts.  Status:  This comment has been addressed.  b. Pond B:   i. Maintenance access should be provided such that any stormwater easement is  outside of the wetland buffer and does not conflict with the adjacent units. A  minimized wetland impact is allowable for the outlet pipe.  Status:  This comment is outstanding.  8    ii. Can the length of the outfall pipe be shortened in order to minimize wetland  impacts?  Status:  This comment has been addressed.    8. Trees should not be planted within easements for storm drains or sewers proposed to be taken  over by the City.   Status:  This comment is outstanding but the applicant has indicated they will remove the trees  from utility easements.    9. Landscaping plans should be revised to permit access to Stormwater ponds for maintenance.   Status:  This comment is outstanding but the applicant has indicated they will revise the  landscaping plans to comply.    10. Sheet S1 – Scale is noted as 1”=150’ in the title block, but graphic scale is shown at 1 inch = 60 ft.  Status:  This comment has been addressed.    11. Sheet P – Scale is noted as 1”=150’ in the title block, but appears to be inaccurate.  Status:  This comment has been addressed.    12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the Applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater  treatment and conveyance infrastructure.  Status:  The Applicant concurs with this condition.    Thank you for the opportunity to comment,  Dave    Staff recommends the Board require the Applicant to address the comments of the Stormwater Section prior  to approving the preliminary plat application.  Staff further recommends should the applicant make the  request, the Board approve the reduction of Russett Road between Liberty Lane and Lindamac Street to 18‐ feet.    (A)(9)  Roads,  utilities,  sidewalks,  recreation  paths,  and  lighting  are  designed  in  a  manner  that  is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement  with the Applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect  Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and  sidewalks.    The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on December 27, 2017 and offers the following comments.    Hello Marla,    I have reviewed the various traffic analyses submitted by the applicant for the referenced project.  Materials that will be referenced in this email via footnote include:    1. 12/22/17 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson  2. 12/4/17 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson  3. 7/17/17 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson  9  4. 12/28/15 Supplemental Analysis Letter from Roger Dickinson  5. 6/2/08 Traffic Impact Study from Trudell Consulting Engineers  6. State of Vermont Act 250 LU Permit #4C1128‐4 Amendment issued 2/29/16    Land Use Code    The applicant correctly applies the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) LU Code 230, Single Family  Dwelling in their recent analyses1, 2, 3.     Dorset Street and Cider Mill Drive Intersection    The studies1 conclude a southbound left‐turn lane is warranted at this intersection. The applicant’s Final  Plat Submission shall include this mitigation measure in its plans.    Hinesburg Road and Cheesefactory Road Intersection     This is the one section of adjacent roadway that is identified by VTrans as a High Crash Location (actual  crashes exceed the critical rate). One measure to improve safety as this intersection would be to install a  southbound right turn deceleration lane on Hinesburg Road at Cheesefactory Road. The applicant has  already been conditioned6 that, “Prior to the construction of the 26th unit in the Project, the Permittee  shall prepare a scoping study of the [intersection], prepare a cost estimate for any improvements and  pay a ‘fair share’ impact fee to the City of South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total  cost of the improvement.” This condition should be incorporated into future City Conditions of Approval  for this project so that 1) all mandated improvements are easily located in a single location and 2) to  ensure improved safety at the intersection.    Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Road Intersection     Traffic analysis1 indicates the project will have a negative impact on this intersection’s operations,  specifically the eastbound Van Sicklen Road approach at Hinesburg Road. This intersection has previously  been identified as a location in need of improvement by the City of South Burlington and is incorporated  into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee. The applicant will contribute $128,000 in Traffic Impact Fees to the City  for this project. Those fees can be used by the City to upgrade this intersection. No further mitigation is  required by the applicant at this location.    Hinesburg Road and (proposed) Nadeaucrest Drive    Traffic studies1, 2 indicate that neither a right turn lane onto or off of Hinesburg Road are warranted as  part of this project. The City agrees with this assessment.    Overall    The project greatly benefits from having access to two non‐signal controlled high volume roadways in  Dorset Street (Class 2 Town Highway) and Hinesburg Road (State Route 116), each with approximate  volumes of 6,000 cars per day. These roadways have high Levels of Service and the ability to absorb  additional traffic.    10  The above mentioned micro‐improvements will ensure the project does not cause undue, adverse  conditions on existing and proposed roadways.    Additional detail‐related comments will be provided at the time of Final Plat Submittal, which is typically  when specific design related details make their way into plan sets.    Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.    Justin Rabidoux  Director of Public Works    In their cover letter in support of this applicant, the applicant has requested removal of condition #25 of the  original approval (SD‐08‐34) requiring the applicant to reassess the Hinesburg Road (VT 116)/Cheesefactory  Road intersection before the 26th dwelling unit is constructed and pay a ‘fair share’ impact fee to the City of  South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total cost of the improvement.  In accordance with  Director of Public Works recommendations, Staff recommends that the Board not remove this condition.    They have also requested removal of condition #26 of the original approval (SD‐08‐34) requiring the applicant  to reassess the northbound left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest intersection  prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 50th and 100th dwelling units.  Staff supports this request.    (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected  district(s).    The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows.    Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas  within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.    Objective  61.  Maintain  opportunities  for  traditional  and  emerging  forms  of  agriculture  that  complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s  remaining agricultural lands.    Objective  62.  Enhance  Dorset  Street  as  the  SEQ’s  “main  street” with traffic calming techniques,  streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway  profile suited to its intended local traffic function.    Staff considers Objective 60 to be satisfied by supporting a corridor through open spaces and by limiting  the roadway connections to that necessary to achieve an east‐west connection, which is another stated  City objective.  Objective 61 is discussed in conjunction with SEQ Section 9.06 below.  Objective 62 is  addressed by the traffic study and discussed in response to standard (A)(9) above.    F) 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.  Excluded from site plan review are one and two family dwellings on a single lot.   This means that the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots within the Proposed  development are subject to these standards, because they are not located on single lots.  Section 14.06 of  11  the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards  for all site plan applications:    A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due  attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use  policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.    Conformance  with  the  Comprehensive  Plan  is  described  in  conjunction  with  Planned  Unit  Development Standard (A)(10) above.    B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.  (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from  structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,  and adequate parking areas.    No grading, parking or landscaping plans have been provided for the two family dwellings and the  single family dwellings on shared lots.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit  these materials for review.    (2) Parking:  (a)  Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing  a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this  subsection.    The applicant has provided elevations showing that the garages for the two family dwellings  and the single family dwellings on shared lots will be farther from the street than the front of  the building and will be located 8‐feet behind the front of the porch.  Staff considers this  criterion met.    (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and  scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated  adjoining buildings.    The applicant is proposing buildings with a height of 26‐feet when measured from the base  of the structure to the midpoint of the roof.  Staff considers that the heights are compatible  with the adjoining structures, but that the height standard is not met.  Height is further  discussed under dimensional requirements above.    (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior  alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.    Proposed electric and telecom lines are not shown on the provided plans.  Staff recommends  the Board require the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed layout of site  utilities, including electric cabinets, prior to final plat approval.  Staff further recommends the  Board require the applicant to demonstrate coordination with the electric service provider  regarding general utility cabinet number and location.    12  C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.  (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common  materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),  landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions  between buildings of different architectural styles.    (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to  existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed  structures.    The Applicant has submitted a set of model home plans and elevations for each of the single  family, duplex and single family on a shared lot homes.  The applicant has proposed a Design  Guidelines document to ensure that the mixture of home models meet this standard.  Staff  recommends the Board incorporate the Design Guidelines for each home type as a condition  of approval.  This standard is discussed in greater detail as it pertains to SEQ‐NR Standard  9.07C(2) below.    In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific  standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:    A. Access to Abutting Properties.  The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of  access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto  an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to  improve general access and circulation in the area.    Staff  considers  that  appropriate connections  have  been  made  in Cider  Mill  II  to  adjoining  properties.    B. Utility Services.   Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall  be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a  harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.    See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.    C. Disposal of Wastes.  All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance  with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with  opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).    No dumpsters are proposed as part of the Project.  Staff considers this criterion met.    D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)    Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall  be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review.  The total cost of the project is estimated  at $21,300,000 by the applicant.  The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $220,500.      It appears the total cost of the Project may include the cost of the single family homes.  The single family  homes are not subject to the landscaping budget.  Staff recommends the Board clarify with the applicant the  13  project cost exclusive of the single family homes in order to update the required landscaping budget.    The applicant has not provided a proposed landscaping budget.  Staff recommends the Board require the  applicant to provide a proposed landscaping budget, exclusive of street trees.    Total Building Construction or  Building Improvement Cost  % of Total Construction/  Improvement Cost  Cost of proposed project  $0 ‐ $250,000  3%  $7,500  Next $250,000  2%  $5,000  Additional over $500,000  1%  $208,000   Minimum Landscaping $  $220,500   Proposed Landscaping  $unknown    The landscape plan does not show the landscaping around the duplex and single family homes on a  shared lot, which is a required element of site plan review.  Applicant should provide landscaping for the  homes requiring site plan review.     The City Arborist submitted comments in an email to staff on December 11, 2017:    Cider Mill II Landscape Review  Mike Lawrence Associates LA       12/8/17    Species Selection:  1. Recommend cultivars of Freeman Maple instead of Red Maple.  Red Maples suffer manganese  deficiency in the soils present on this site, particularly when located near sidewalk and curbs.  2. ‘Redmond’ Linden is a cultivar of Tilia Americana not T. tomentosa  3. ‘Regal’ Elm is a hybrid, not a cultivar of American Elm  4. Purple Robe Locust would be better suited for use in a naturalized area, wetland or stormwater  pond border due to its tendency to root sucker.  Possible substitutes for street tree use include  Amur maackia, European Hornbeam, Hophornbeam  5. Recommend increasing the number of ‘Baumanii’ Horshechestnut while decreasing the number  of ‘Brioti’ Horsechestnut.  Baumanii is a larger tree and little more cold hardy.  6. Recommend substitute species for Chanticleer Pear as street tree.  Chanticleer Pear often suckers  profusely at the base, creating maintenance problems.  Possible substitutes include Amur  Maackia, European Hornbeam, American Hornbeam, American Hophornbeam  Sheet L2:  1. Regal Elm across from unit 101 and white Oak by unit 91 too close to street light.  Should  maintain distance of 15 ft. to minimize conflicts  Sheet L3:  1. Several trees located too close to street lights (Red Maple, Bur Oak @unit 77, Purple Robe  Locust@unit 81)  2. White Spruce@unit 38 need to move off sidewalk 8 ‐10 ft.  Sheet L5:  1. Redmond Linden unit 40 and pear unit 42 too close to street light  2. Move Oaks and Spruces behind units 39‐41 off sidewalk 8‐10 ft.    The applicant provided updated plans responding to the Arborist’s comments on December 21, 2017.    14    Staff is awaiting confirmation from the Arborist on whether all comments have been addressed.    G) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT  This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district.  Therefore, it is subject to the  provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.    9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts.  The following standards  shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:  A. Height.  See Article 3.07.  Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the  maximum number of stories and the maximum height.  Waivers area not available for  structures with the SEQ zoning district.    The Project is located within the SEQ‐NR and SEQ‐VR districts.  The applicant has not demonstrated  compliance with the height requirements of these districts, as summarized in the zoning district and  dimensional standards section above.      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    Open space areas are proposed throughout the development.  The layout of the open spaces not  designated as park land are largely dictated by the wetland configuration on the Site.  Many of the  open spaces are located at the perimeter of the development and are continued on adjoining parcels.    A discussion of the adequacy of the open space areas designated as parks is included under SEQ  standard 9.06D: Public Services and Facilities below.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at  the average densities provided in this bylaw.    The applicant is proposing to purchase Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) to allow the project  to have closer to the maximum density.  Staff considers that the applicant has laid out the  development to facilitate the densities allowable and therefore considers the layout is consistent  with the regulating plan.    (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management  shall be established by the applicant.     Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit an open space management plan  prior to final plat approval.    (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  15  Conservation.    See discussion under PUD Criteria A(2).    (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.    The applicant has proposed post and rail fencing in some locations where the dwelling unit  backyards and neighborhood park lands abut wetlands.  They have not proposed fencing where  the wetland areas are buffered from the development by stormwater features, nor have they  proposed fencing where the single family lots abut wetlands.  In these locations, buffers are  demarcated  by  landscaping,  except  south  of  proposed  unit  #83,  where  no  demarcation  is  proposed.    The applicant met with the Natural Resources Committee on October 4, 2017.  While this criterion  was not explicitly discussed, the Committee expressed that in general, guard rails on roads and  railings on paths present a barrier to wildlife passage.  Staff considers that the Committee would  likely recommend fencing be limited to where necessary to demarcate natural areas rather than  be applied in all locations.      Staff considers the proposed fencing adequate to meet this criterion, except Staff recommends the  Board require the Applicant to provide demarcation fencing or landscaping along the wetland  boundary south of proposed unit #83.    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 proposed project includes a proposed community garden area for residents and is slated to  include the use of 98 Transferable Development Rights, which will be drawn from approximately  81 acres of land in the SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection District.    The land to the south and east of the project is has been farmland (though notably it is zoned  residential).  Homes in the southern and eastern portion of this project were previously approved  by the Development Review Board, as noted above.     Staff recommends that the Board ask the applicant to discuss their plans for communicating with  future residents of this area about the agricultural nature of the adjacent lands and Vermont’s  Right to Farm statutes and discuss any physical delineations they might make to support a  mutually supportive transition between these areas.    D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review  16  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.  (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the  needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as  evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water  and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and wastewater  allocation prior to final plat approval.    (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.    See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.    (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 discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.    (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 discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.    D. 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.    (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and  neighborhoods shall apply.  17    See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.    9.07 Regulating Plans  A. ...  B. General Provisions  (1) …  (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district  shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended    In the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD‐16‐01) similarly sized and proportioned single‐ family lots in a near identical layout were approved by the Board in the southernmost section  of the project.  In the present proposal, the south portion slightly reconfigures the single  family lots.  The homes within the north portion of the project are significantly reconfigured  compared to the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD‐16‐01), though the units on the  northern portion of the project are not proposed to be on individual lots therefore this  standard does not apply. The reconfigured lots on the south portion of the project are of  similar proportion to the previously approved lots.  Staff considers that the proposed single‐ family lots do not all meet the ratio requirement of this standard.  However, given that the  Board has previously permitted similarly sized and proportioned lots in the south section of  the  project,  staff does not consider it appropriate to re‐open a discussion on those  lot  proportions.    C. …  D. Parks Design and Development.   (1) General standards.  The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park  Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as  defined in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000  square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.   Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free  destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of  life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the  neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,  local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and  there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.     (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.     The applicant is proposing five open space areas designated as parks.  Of these  five areas, one is designated as a community garden, while the remaining four  are designated as neighborhood park land.  The applicant has verbally  represented that the parks will be maintained as lawn without amenities,  18  though the proposed plan includes a gazebo in the southernmost  neighborhood park.  Staff recommends the Board consider whether this meets  the distribution criteria of this standard.      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.     Staff considers this criterion met.    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.      The applicant represents on their Overall Site Plan (Plan Sheet #2) that the open  spaces total 3.78 acres, or 3.64 acres when omitting the community garden.   The applicant has not provided plans showing the limits of the open spaces they  used for this calculation, nor have they proposed any demarcation to define a  clear transition between the private and public realm as recommended in the  Standards and as requested by the Board in sketch plan review.    Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to substantiate their open  space calculations with a plan and to describe and show how public open spaces  will be demarcated from private spaces.    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.    Staff considers this criterion met.    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.      The applicant has verbally represented that open spaces will be maintained by the  homeowners’ association.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant submit  documentation of this agreement prior to recording mylars.    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.   19    As discussed above, the applicant has not provided demarcation to define a clear  transition  between  the  private  and  public  realm.    Staff  considers the other  elements of these design guidelines to be met.    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.  If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid‐block public  sidewalk or recreation path connections.    Lindamac Street and Senator Street both extend greater than 500 feet but both of these  streets have mid‐block pedestrian connections.  Other blocks are less than 500 feet.  Staff  considers this criterion met in the SEQ‐NR sub‐district.    (2) Interconnection of Streets   (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.     See discussion immediately above.    (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent  parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead  end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.     The south end of Russett Road is proposed to be approximately 150 feet long and  extend to the property line to accommodate a future public connection to the  AuClair property to the south.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio  of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended    See discussion under 9.07 above.    B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards  (1) Street dimensions and cross sections.  Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are  intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and  are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.    Staff considers this criterion to be met.    (2) Sidewalks.   (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional  minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from  the street.   (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.    20  Plans show that the sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, will occur  on at least one side of the street, and will have a sufficient planting strip.    (3)  Street Trees  (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five  feet wide.   (b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to  the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size  of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on  center.    Street trees are spaced greater than 30‐feet apart along the east‐west roadways  in the two and single family on shared lots portions of the development.  Staff  recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plans to reduce the  proposed street tree spacing to 30‐feet.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR  district.    (4) On‐street parking.  Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided  on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts.  This  requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds  sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of  the uses adjacent to the street.    The applicant has proposed a variety of road widths ranging from 18‐feet at the wetland  crossings to 26‐feet along some roads.  Proposed widths are shown in the below stick  diagram.    21      Staff considers that the road widths narrower than 26‐feet are acceptable where no homes  are proposed, but in particular along the portions of Nadeaucrest Drive, Russett Road,  Senator Street and Pippin Lane where homes face the street, the roadway should be  widened to 26‐feet.  22    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the proposed road widths and  whether there is a compelling reason not to widen the roads by two to four feet to allow  on‐street parking.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR district.    (5) Intersection  Design.    Intersections  shall  be  designed  to  reduce  pedestrian  crossing  distances and to slow traffic.    Staff considers that the intersections are not designed to reflect the slow traffic and  reduced widths recommended in Figure 9‐6.    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they propose to meet this  standard.    This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR district.    (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.    The applicant is proposing twelve to fourteen foot high fixtures.  Fixtures are spaced  generally so that light levels drop to zero for a brief space between light cones, except in  the single family on shared lots portion of the development where lighting is continuous.   There are lights proposed at both wetland crossings.    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether higher density light  fixtures are necessary in the single family on shared lots portion of the development, and  also discuss relocating lights to reduce bleed into the wetlands.  This comment also applies  to the SEQ‐VR district.    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; see Section 9.11).  A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent  windows  and  surfaces  should  be  oriented  to  the  south.  In  the  SEQ‐NRN  sub‐district,  residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the  extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.    The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type.  Primary entries  face  the  street.  Building  orientation  varies  through  the  development  and  thus  the  translucence standard cannot be evaluated at this time.  Staff considers that translucence  criteria can be evaluated by the administrative officer at the time of zoning permit application.    (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  23  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.     The applicant has provided six pages of typical elevations for a variety of home types, as well  as a set of design guidelines for each of the single family, two family, and single family on  shared lots style homes.  These design guidelines also require variations between the home  types.  Staff considers that the single family home elevations and design guidelines meet this  criterion.      Staff considers that all of the proposed two family home types are too similar to one another  and should be revised.  Staff considers that the single family on shared lots types 3 and 4 are  too similar to one another and should be revised.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR  district.    (3) Front Building Setbacks.  A close relationship between the building and the street is  critical to the ambiance of the street environment.   (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back  of sidewalk.   (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front  setbacks.     Staff considers that the two‐family homes meet these criteria.  Staff considers that the  single family homes on a shared lot located on the side of the road without a sidewalk are  greater than twenty‐five feet from the back of the curb.    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the single family homes  on a shared lot can also be located within twenty‐five feet (25’) of the back of curb.  These  homes are currently located approximately thirty feet (30’) from the back of the curb.   Similarly, while the proposed locations of the two‐family homes meet this standard, the  porches are located 10 feet from the recreation path on the south side of the street and  17 feet from the back of curb on the north side of the street, where there is no recreation  path.    Staff  considers  that  this  may  result  in  an  unbalanced  feel  to  the  street  and  recommends the Board discuss whether the homes should be located an equal distance  from the edge of pavement on both sides of the road.     (4) Placement of Garages and Parking.  For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a  front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back  a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.   (a)  For the purposes of this subsection:  (i)  The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,  shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary  entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not  including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)   (ii)  The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line  may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’)  wide.    24  Staff considers that the garages are set back at least eight feet in all the home types  provided, but for some home types it is not immediately apparent that the width of the  dwelling is twelve feet or greater.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to  clarify building widths prior to final plat approval.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐ VR district.    (b)  …   (c)  Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and  townhouses.    The applicant is not proposing any alleys.    (d) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial,  etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments.  These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather  than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.     The applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that all of the single family  homes are grouped, all of the two‐family home are grouped, and all of the single family  on a shared lot homes are grouped.    The proposed design standards ensure that within each grouping of homes that the home  styles be mixed.  Staff considers this criterion met.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐ VR district.    9.09 SEQ‐VR Sub‐District; Specific Standards  The SEQ‐VR 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 400  linear feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks  400  feet  or  longer  must  include  mid‐block  public  sidewalk  or  recreation  path  connections.     Aurora Road extends for 1,050 feet without a mid‐block connection.      Staff considers that the Board should require the applicant to add a mid‐block pedestrian  connection to Aurora Road or otherwise revise the configuration of Aurora Road in order to  meet this criterion.    (2) Interconnection of Streets   (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.     See discussion immediately above.    (b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer‐head) that are not constructed to  an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged.  Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.  25    The applicant has revised the configuration of Aurora Road to be a cul‐de‐sac less  than 200 feet long.  Staff considers this criterion met.        (3) Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.    Lots in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot.  Staff considers this criterion  met.    B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards  (1) Street dimensions and cross sections.  Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the  VR sub‐district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use  that  discourage  through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.    Aurora Road has a meandering centerline, and is connected to adjoining streets at right  angles.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) Sidewalks  (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional  minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the  street.   (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, 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.     The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide recreation path along Aurora Road.   Staff considers these criteria met.  (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (4) On‐street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (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 comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (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.      26  See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    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).    The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type.  Primary entries  face the street. Staff considers this criterion 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 comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (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.     (a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk.    Buildings are set back ten feet from the back of sidewalk and fifteen feet from the  back of curb where there is no sidewalk.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (b) 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.    Porches are proposed to project six feet (6’) into the front setback where there is  a sidewalk, and two feet (2’) into the front setback where there is no sidewalk.   Staff considers this criterion met.    (4) Placement of Garages and Parking.  See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7.    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (5) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,  and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should  be  mixed  within  blocks,  along  the  street  and  within  neighborhoods  rather  than  compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    H) SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS  Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.  27    (1)   Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas  is generally discouraged.  (2)   Encroachment  into  Class  II wetlands  is  permitted  by  the  City  only  in  conjunction  with  issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental  Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.  (3)   Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,  may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion  control,  stormwater  treatment  system,  provisions  for  stream  buffering,  and  landscaping  plan  achieve the following standards for wetland protection:    The  applicant  received  State  Wetland  Permit  #2210  in  2014.    They  are  proposing  two  wetland  crossings, one on Aurora Road and one on Russett Road.  They’re also encroaching onto the wetland  and wetland buffer at three other locations throughout the development.      (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store  flood waters adequately;    The applicant is proposing a two 24” culverts at the Aurora Road crossing and two 24” culverts at  the Russett Road Crossing.  It is not clear whether the proposed culverts are to be flat equalizer  culverts or to be pitched to drain, and if to drain, which direction they drain in.  These culverts  were not included in the hydrologic modeling for the site.    Staff considers that these culverts may act as restrictions reducing the ability of the property to  carry or store flood waters, and recommends the Board require the applicant to provide supporting  documentation demonstrating that the selected culvert sizes and slopes are adequately protective  of the site’s ability to carry and store flood waters.    (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater  treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;    The Stormwater Section has expressed concerns about the proximity of the stormwater ponds to  the wetland buffers specifically with respect to the ability to maintain the systems without  wetland impacts, as discussed above.      (c)   The  impact  of  the  encroachment(s)  on  the  specific  wetland functions  and  values  identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate  landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.    Staff has reviewed the supporting documentation which accompanied the state wetland permit  application.  The functions identified include surface and groundwater protection, storage for  flood water and stormwater runoff, bird habitat, and wildlife habitat diversity.  Staff considers this  criterion to be met.      Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐ half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.    28  Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit  Development Standards above.    I) 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.    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      Single Family Home Design Guidelines - revised 07/24/17 Cider Mill - Phase II Objectives: There are 70 single family lots in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision. In order to promote a rich and interesting neighborhood, JJJ South Burlington LLC adopts the following design guidelines governing the design of single family homes within the subdision. Legal Requirements: Homes in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision must comply with legal requirements found in the City Of South Burlington , Land Development Regulations Adopted May 12, 2003 Amendments Effective: June 27, 2016 Article 9, Southeast Quadrant, Section C. Residential Design. 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; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan. (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. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings with rear facades that orient towards a public recreation path should employ rear porches, balconies, or other features to enhance their architectural detail. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (a) For the purposes of this subsection: (i) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side-by-side primary entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’) (ii) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide. (b) The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the single or two-family dwelling; and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street. (c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses. (d) 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. (i) Mix of Housing Styles, SEQ-NRN sub-district. A minimum of at least three (3) housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and/or affordability is required within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical housing styles. Where housing styles are repeated, different colors and/or materials shall be employed to enhance variety. Design Constraints: Potential homeowners in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the following limits apply: 1. Any given Home Model can be varied in one or more of the following five (5) ways: by mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines. 2. Identical Models (without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots, or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the five variables in Item #1 to be determined sufficiently different. 3. No single Home Model, depicted as Types one (1) through six (6) on sheets A201, A202, and A203, or any new design as described in constraint eight (8), shall be repeated on more than sixteen (16) lots within the subdivision. 4. A home's color palate is comprised of five (5) elements: its primary siding color, accent siding color, roofing color, trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames. A given color palate must change any two of the five variables to be determined sufficiently different. No home, regardless of model, shall have the same primary siding color within three lots of a home of the same color. For every 12 homes on one side of a street block, there shall be at least three different roof colors. 5. A mix of housing size options will be available, 1,500sf-2,000sf, 2,000sf-2,500sf, 2,500sf-3,000sf, providing significantly different pricing options for the neighborhood. 6. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards. As part of the submission, it must be confirmed that the proposed design conforms with these standards. 7. JJJ South Burlington LLC shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the home model, Color Scheme and any variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11 x 17 inch color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by the zoning administrator in checking compliance with these requirements. 8. Additional designs, substantially differing from types shown on Sheets A201, A202, and A203, may be constructed, provided that the designs are in compliance with these standards. Duplex Units Design Guidelines - revised 07/24/17 Cider Mill - Phase II Objectives: There are 54 duplex units (27 duplex buildings) in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision. In order to promote a rich and interesting neighborhood, JJJ South Burlington LLC adopts the following design guidelines governing the design of single family homes within the subdision. Legal Requirements: Homes in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision must comply with legal requirements found in the City Of South Burlington , Land Development Regulations Adopted May 12, 2003 Amendments Effective: June 27, 2016 Article 9, Southeast Quadrant, Section C. Residential Design. 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; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan. (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. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings with rear facades that orient towards a public recreation path should employ rear porches, balconies, or other features to enhance their architectural detail. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (a) For the purposes of this subsection: (i) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side-by-side primary entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’) (ii) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide. (b) The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the single or two-family dwelling; and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street. (c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses. (d) 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. (i) Mix of Housing Styles, SEQ-NRN sub-district. A minimum of at least three (3) housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and/or affordability is required within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical housing styles. Where housing styles are repeated, different colors and/or materials shall be employed to enhance variety. Design Constraints: Potential homeowners in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the following limits apply: 1. Any given Duplex Model can be varied in one or more of the following three (3) ways: by changing the color scheme, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines. 2. Identical Models (without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots, or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the three variables in Item #1 to be determined sufficiently different. 3. No single duplex Model, depicted as Types one (1) through three (3) on sheet A206, or any new design as described in constraint seven (7), shall be repeated on more than ten (10) lots within the subdivision. 4. A duplex's color palate is comprised of five (5) elements: its primary siding color, accent siding color, roofing color, trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames. A given color palate must change any two of the five variables to be determined sufficiently different. No duplex, regardless of model, shall have the same primary siding color within three lots of a home of the same color. For every 12 homes on one side of a street block, there shall be at least three different roof colors. 5. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards. As part of the submission, it must be confirmed that the proposed design conforms with these standards. 6. JJJ South Burlington LLC shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the duplex model, Color Scheme and any variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11 x 17 inch color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by the zoning administrator in checking compliance with these requirements. 7. Additional designs, substantially differing from types shown on Sheet A206, may be constructed, provided that the designs are in compliance with these standards. Carriage Homes Design Guidelines - revised 07/24/17 Cider Mill - Phase II Objectives: There are 30 Carrige Home lots in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision. In order to promote a rich and interesting neighborhood, JJJ South Burlington LLC adopts the following design guidelines governing the design of Carriage homes within the subdision. Legal Requirements: Carriage Homes in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision must comply with legal requirements found in the City Of South Burlington, Land Development Regulations Adopted May 12, 2003 Amendments Effective: June 27, 2016 Article 9, Southeast Quadrant, Section C. Residential Design. 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; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan. (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. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings with rear facades that orient towards a public recreation path should employ rear porches, balconies, or other features to enhance their architectural detail. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (a) For the purposes of this subsection: (i) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side-by-side primary entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’) (ii) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide. (b) The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the single or two-family dwelling; and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street. (c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses. (d) 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. (i) Mix of Housing Styles, SEQ-NRN sub-district. A minimum of at least three (3) housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and/or affordability is required within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical housing styles. Where housing styles are repeated, different colors and/or materials shall be employed to enhance variety. Design Constraints: Potential homeowners in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the following limits apply: 1. Any given Carriage Home Model can be varied in one or more of the following five (5) ways: by mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines. 2. Identical Models (without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots, or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the five variables in Item #1 to be determined sufficiently different. 3. No single Home Model, depicted as Types one (1) through four (4) on sheets A204, and A205, or any new design as described in constraint eight (8), shall be repeated on more than ten (10) lots within the subdivision. 4. A home's color palate is comprised of five (5) elements: its primary siding color, accent siding color, roofing color, trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames. A given color palate must change any two of the five variables to be determined sufficiently different. No home, regardless of model, shall have the same primary siding color within three lots of a home of the same color. For every 12 homes on one side of a street block, there shall be at least three different roof colors. 5. A mix of housing size options will be available, 1,500sf-2,000sf, 2,000sf-2,500sf, 2,500sf-3,000sf, providing significantly different pricing options for the neighborhood. 6. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards. As part of the submission, it must be confirmed that the proposed design conforms with these standards. 7. JJJ South Burlington LLC shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the home model, Color Scheme and any variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11 x 17 inch color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by the zoning administrator in checking compliance with these requirements. 8. Additional designs, substantially differing from types shown on Sheets A204, and A205, may be constructed, provided that the designs are in compliance with these standards. Cider Mill II Traffic Impact Assessment Addendum South Burlington, VT July 17, 2017 revised December 4, 20171 1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Cider Mill II residential development (the Project). Originally designed and permitted to provide 109 residential units (79 single family homes plus 30 condominiums), the Project has since been redesigned to increase the number of units to 142 (96 single family homes plus 46 duplexes). Access to the Project will continue to be provided to/from Dorset St through the original Cider Mill development and to/from Hinesburg Road (VT 116) via a new Cider Mill II street (Nadeaucrest Drive). Although the resulting street network will link Dorset St and Hinesburg Rd, its circuitous layout will discourage east-west through traffic. Previous traffic analyses performed for this Project include: » Traffic Impact Study - Cider Mill Phase II Residential Development, Trudell Consulting Engineers, June 2, 2008. » Supplemental Traffic Analyses letter to Paul O’Leary, PE in response to DEC #4 Hearing Recess Order, Lamoureux & Dickinson, December 28, 2015. With the above analyses having already addressed traffic safety conditions, the primary purpose of this new TIA is to incorporate more recent traffic count data and the larger project size, and to update this Project’s impacts on traffic congestion conditions. 2.0 No-Build Traffic Volumes Historical and current annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on the roadways in the vicinity of the Project are presented in Table 1. Table 1 - AADT History Street Year/AADT (vpd) 2005 2009 2011 2013 2014 2016 Cheesefactory Rd btw Hinesburg & Dorset (D067) 3,900 3,000 3,400 Dorset St N of Cider Mill Dr (D524) N of Cheesefactory Rd (D344) 5,500 5,000 4,200 5,900 4,900 Hinesburg Rd N of Cheesefactory Rd (D525) 5,500 5,900 5,800 For the purpose of this traffic impact assessment (TIA), this Project is anticipated to be constructed during the 2018-2020 time period. The following analyses incorporate a five-year projection to the year 2025 in order to evaluate future traffic conditions following the Project’s completion. This TIA examines both morning and afternoon peak hour traffic congestion conditions. In South Burlington, the afternoon peak hour period experiences the highest traffic volumes and is the time period during which the design hour volume (DHV) 1 revised to reduce the number of proposed units from 154 to 142 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. STAFF HAS REMOVED ATTACHMENTS FROM TRAFFICMEMOS FOR CONCISENESS. ATTACHMENTS AREAVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. generally occurs. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly traffic volume that occurs in a given year, and is used in the design of highways and intersections to determine existing and future traffic congestion conditions. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were obtained from the following turning movement counts: » Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd intersection, VTrans, June 29, 2016; » Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd intersection, Lamoureux & Dickinson, July 13 & 14, 2017; » Dorset St/Cheesefactory Rd intersection, VTrans, June 29, 2016; » Dorset St/Cider Mill Dr intersection, O’Leary Burke Civil Associates, March 24, 2015 (am peak period), and; » Dorset St/Cider Mill Dr intersection, Lamoureux & Dickinson, November 27, 2017 (pm peak period). The observed peak hour volumes in the above turning movement counts were found to exceed Dorset St and Hinesburg Rd DHV’s, as calculated using the VTrans DHV Determination Method2. In light of that, a DHV adjustment factor was obtained from continuous count station (CTC) D129, located on VT Route 2A in Williston, and applied to the two June 2016 Cheesefactory Rd turning movement counts. Peak hour volumes at the remaining intersections were then adjusted accordingly. The resulting peak hour volumes were then projected to the year 2025 using a 5% background traffic growth factor from 2016 to 20251. Figures 1 and 2 present the projected year 2025 No-Build AM and PM peak hour volumes at the intersections in the vicinity of this Project. 3.0 Project-Generated Trips The additional new trip generation of this Project was estimated using trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the proposed land-use categories3. Table 2 shows the resulting estimated average weekday vehicular trip generation of both the previously approved 109 unit Project and the now proposed 154 unit Project. Table 2 - Project-Generated Vehicle Trips Proposed Land-Use ITE Land-Use Category # Units Avg. Weekdaya AM Peak Hourb PM Peak Hourb Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Original Project Single Family Dwelling Residential Condominium Totals 210 230 79 30 109 752 226 978 15 3 18 44 17 61 59 20 79 50 15 65 29 7 36 79 22 101 Revised Project Single Family Dwelling 230 142 1,352 27 80 107 89 53 142 a vehicle trip ends per day (vte/day) b vehicle trip ends per hour (vte/hr) The directional distributions of project-generated peak hour trips were estimated as described in the above- referenced supplemental traffic analyses letter. The resulting peak hour trip distributions are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Following those are Figures 5 and 6 showing the projected year 2025 Build AM and PM peak hour volumes. 2 Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis Based on 2015 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, September 2016 3 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 1 - 2025 No-Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Dorset St VT 116 143 19 144 54 79 Cider Mill Dr 123 Van Sicklen Rd12141 412 5 Cider Mill II Residential Development 351 163 0 253 Nadeaucrest Rd 0 0 N 0 546 44 76 45 170 83 Barstow Rd 41 55 Cheesefactory Rd 270 116 165 16 68 18 43 198 114 83 276 Dorset St VT 116 Figure 2 - 2025 No-Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Dorset St VT 116 376 88 343 116 28 Cider Mill Dr 66 Van Sicklen Rd6225 195 21 Cider Mill II Residential Development 171 153 0 573 Nadeaucrest Rd 0 0 N 0 318 47 219 54 315 258 Barstow Rd 51 66 Cheesefactory Rd 198 131 130 77 134 66 18 130 62 26 120 Dorset St VT 116 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 3 - Project-Generated AM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St VT 116 09 100 28 Cider Mill Dr 0 Van Sicklen Rd23 01 Cider Mill II Residential Development 31 9 13 0 Nadeaucrest Rd 40 10 N 40 110 82 Barstow Rd 1 0 Cheesefactory Rd 3 2 6 0 20 001 01 Dorset St VT 116 Figure 4 - Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St VT 116 031 350 18 Cider Mill Dr 0 Van Sicklen Rd19 02 Cider Mill II Residential Development 21 6 44 0 Nadeaucrest Rd 27 7 N 12 0 100 61 Barstow Rd 2 0 Cheesefactory Rd 10 7 5 0 10 003 02 Dorset St VT 116 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 5 - 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Dorset St VT 116 143 28 154 54 107 Cider Mill Dr 123 Van Sicklen Rd14144 412 6 Cider Mill II Residential Development 382 172 13 253 Nadeaucrest Rd 40 10 N 4 546 45 77 45 178 85 Barstow Rd 42 55 Cheesefactory Rd 273 118 171 16 70 18 43 198 115 83 277 Dorset St VT 116 Figure 6 - 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Dorset St VT 116 376 119 378 116 46 Cider Mill Dr 66 Van Sicklen Rd7234 195 23 Cider Mill II Residential Development 192 159 44 573 Nadeaucrest Rd 27 7 N 12 318 48 219 54 321 259 Barstow Rd 53 66 Cheesefactory Rd 208 138 135 77 135 66 18 130 65 26 122 Dorset St VT 116 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4.0 Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion conditions are identified by “levels of service”, commonly referred to as “LOS”. The ranges are A to F; where A represents essentially free flow (no congestion), C represents average congestion, and F represents severe congestion. At signalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the overall delay experienced by all turning and through movements. At unsignalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the minor-street approach having the lowest LOS. The level of service criteria for intersections is shown in Table 3. Table 3 - Level of Service/Delay Criteria4 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) Signalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized A B C 10 20 35 10 15 25 D E F 55 80 >80 35 50 >50 In Vermont, LOS C represents the desired design standard for roadways and signalized intersections5. At two-way stop controlled (unsignalized) intersections having greater than 100 vph approach volume on a single-lane side street approach or greater than 150 vph approach volume on a two-lane side street approach, the VTrans level of service policy establishes LOS D as the desired design standard on the minor street approach(s). There is no level of service standard for unsignalized intersections not meeting the above side street volume thresholds. Reduced levels of service are acceptable in densely settled areas where volume/capacity ratios remain below 1.0 and/or the improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can also be used to help mitigate levels of service not meeting the foregoing standards. Section 15.12.F of the City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations require that signalized intersections in the vicinity of a development have an overall level of service D or better, with the through movements on the major roadways also experiencing level of service D or better at full build-out. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the year 2025 “No-Build” and “Build” scenarios. Comparing the results of the two sets of analyses identifies the incremental impact of this Project on future traffic congestion conditions. Table 4 presents the results of those analyses. Detailed capacity analysis results for each intersection are enclosed as Appendices A-F. Table 4 - Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour (DHV) No-Build Build No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Dorset St/Cider Mill Dr Dorset St SB LT/TH Cider Mill Dr WB LT/RT A B 8 12 0.02 0.15 1' 13' A B 8 12 0.02 0.20 2' 19' A B 8 11 0.06 0.05 5' 4' A B 8 11 0.09 0.08 7' 6' Dorset St/Cheesefactory Rda Barstow Rd EB Cheesefactory Rd WB Dorset St NB Dorset St SB Overall B B B B B 11 13 15 11 13 0.29 0.45 0.53 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- B B B B B 11 14 15 11 13 0.29 0.47 0.54 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- B C B C C 14 17 13 17 16 0.45 0.56 0.37 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- B C B C C 15 18 13 17 16 0.47 0.58 0.38 0.56 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 5 Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour (DHV) No-Build Build No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd Hinesburg Rd SB LT/TH Van Sicklen Rd WB LT/RT A B 9 14 0.05 0.39 4' 47' A B 9 15 0.05 0.42 4' 53' A D 8 33 0.09 0.69 8' 156' A E 8 47 0.10 0.78 8' 223' Hinesburg Rd/Nadeaucrest Dr Hinesburg Rd NB LT/TH Nadeaucrest DR EB LT/RT A C 8 16 0.00 0.13 0' 11' A C 9 18 0.01 0.11 1' 9' Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd Hinesburg Rd NB LT/TH Cheesefactory Rd EB LT/RT A D 8 28 0.06 0.65 5' 128' A D 8 29 0.06 0.66 5' 135' A C 9 20 0.03 0.53 2' 82' A C 9 22 0.03 0.56 2' 92' a HCS All-Way Stop Control analysis results do not include maximum queue lengths The above results indicate that this Project will minimally impact future traffic congestion conditions at all but one intersection. The exception is the Hinesburg Road/Van Sicklen Road intersection where the future level of service during the afternoon peak hour will drop from D to E. This intersection is targeted for improvement in the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, as will be further discussed in the following section. At the new Project access (Nadeaucrest Drive) onto Hinesburg Road, the results of the above analyses indicate minimal delays for northbound traffic due to left-turns entering the Project. The warrants for installing an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Hinesburg Rd were examined using the posted speed limit of 50 mph. The results determined that a left-turn lane will not be warranted at full-build out of this Project. 5.0 Transportation Impact Fees Based on the estimated 142 pm peak hour trips being generated during the 2018-2020 time period, this Project will contribute just over $128,000 ($902 per trip end) to the City of South Burlington in transportation impact fees. Those fees will be used to construct designated highway and intersection improvements throughout the City (as identified in the City Impact Fee Ordinance). One of the transportation improvement projects listed in that Ordinance is to improve sight distances and to install turning lanes and a traffic signal at the Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd intersection at an estimated cost of $300,000. This Project will also pay $272,640 ($1,920 per unit) in recreation impact fees to the City of South Burlington. Approximately 69% of that fee ($188,000) is designated to be used for the development of recreation paths (shared-use paths) and bicycle lanes throughout the City. The original Cider Mill II traffic impact study projected that the Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd intersection would experience level of service F traffic congestion conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. With those original findings, this Project was required by its local approval to pay up to 35.6% of the City’s cost to improve the Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd intersection. The Project’s Act 250 permit contained a similar requirement. The needed improvements were not defined; but the Act 250 permit required that a scoping study be performed prior to the construction of the 26th unit. The Supplemental Traffic Analyses letter prepared by this office in December 2015 determined that the addition of an exclusive southbound right-turn lane on VT 116 for traffic turning right onto Cheesefactory Rd was already warranted under existing (no-build) conditions. It also found that a southbound right-turn lane would mitigate this Project’s impact on future delays and levels of service experienced by traffic exiting Cheesefactory Rd. The analyses presented therein recommended a 21.3% contribution; which was incorporated into the above Act 250 permit condition. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The updated intersection capacity analyses at the Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd intersection in this TIA have found considerably better future levels of service; D and C during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. These findings suggest that although the previously recommended southbound right-turn lane would be helpful in reducing delays and improving future safety conditions at this intersection, it is no longer required to mitigate this Project impact on future traffic congestion conditions. 6.0 TDM Strategies & Multi-Modal Connections This Project includes the construction of new sidewalks and shared-use paths that will link and extend the City’s existing path/sidewalk network from Dorset St and Cider Mill 1 through this Project to Hinesburg Rd. The resulting path/sidewalk system will provide multi-modal connections for use by local residents; including those living along Hinesburg Rd. to access City facilities and amenities to the northwest on Dorset St. The Green Mountain Transit Authority (GMTA) also operates the ‘116 Commuter’ bus route along Hinesburg Rd; traveling between Burlington and Middlebury through Hinesburg and Bristol. This route provides morning and afternoon peak period service. The closest existing stop presently is at Butler Farms to the north of the Project. 7.0 Conclusions From the foregoing analyses, we conclude: » That adequate capacity presently exists on roadways and at intersections in the immediate vicinity of this Project with one exception: the Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd intersection. » With the above one exception, that this Project will not adversely impact existing or future traffic congestion conditions. » The City of South Burlington has included a future transportation improvement project at the Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd intersection in its Impact Fee Ordinance. The transportation impact fees that this Project will pay will be used to construct that and other transportation improvement projects throughout the City. Payment of those fees will thus effectively mitigate this Project’s impact on the Hinesburg Rd/Van Sicklen Rd intersection. » The projected traffic patterns at the new Hinesburg Rd/Nadeaucrest Dr (Project Access) intersection were found to not meet the warrant for the addition of an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Hinesburg Rd. » Although previous traffic analyses for this Project projected adverse traffic congestion conditions at the Hinesburg Rd/Cheesefactory Rd intersection, the future levels of service resulting from the updated analyses in this TIA fall within accepted ranges (LOS D or better). Future traffic congestion conditions at this intersection should continue to be monitored as this Project is constructed. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8 Consulting Engineers, Inc.     /DPRXUHX[ 'LFNLQVRQ WĂŐĞϭ &RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV,QF   d,E/>DDKZEhD     WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ ŝĚĞƌDŝůů//͕^ŽƵƚŚƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶ ĂƚĞ͗ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϭϳ &ƌŽŵ͗ ZŽŐĞƌŝĐŬŝŶƐŽŶ͕W͕WdK ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ   /ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝŶZĂďŝĚŽƵdž͕^ŽƵƚŚ ƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶWƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌͬŝƚLJŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͘  ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚͬEĂĚĞĂƵĐƌĞƐƚƌŝǀĞ ŶĐůŽƐĞĚĂƐƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚŝƐĂƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϮϱWDƵŝůĚƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘dŚŝƐ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞǁŽƵůĚƐĞƌǀĞƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶŝŶŐǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐEĂĚĞĂƵĐƌĞƐƚƌŝǀĞĨƌŽŵ ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚĂƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞŝƐŶŽƚǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚ͘  ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚͬsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZŽĂĚ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚǁĂƐĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϮϱWDƵŝůĚƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚƚŚĂƚ ĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƐƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĂĚĚŝŶŐĂƐĞĐŽŶĚǁĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚůĂŶĞŽŶsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚƐŽƚŚĂƚůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶƐ ĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶƐǁŽƵůĚĞĂĐŚŚĂǀĞĂŶĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞůĂŶĞ͘/ŶƌƵŶŶŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͕ŝƚǁĂƐĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚůĂŶĞŐĞŽŵĞƚƌLJŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJŝŶƉƵƚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞdƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ;d/ͿĚĚĞŶĚƵŵĚĂƚĞĚ:ƵůLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϭϳĂŶĚƌĞǀŝƐĞĚŽŶ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϰ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘dŚĞŐĞŽŵĞƚƌLJǁĂƐĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚƚŽŵĂƚĐŚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚŶĞǁĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ ĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ͘dŚĞŶĞǁƌĞƐƵůƚƐƌĞƉůĂĐĞƚŚŽƐĞƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϰŽĨƚŚĞd/ĚĚĞŶĚƵŵ͕ĂŶĚĂƌĞ ƐƵŵŵĂƌŝnjĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚĂďůĞ͘ĞƚĂŝůĞĚƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂƌĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĂƐƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐϭͲϱ͘  ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZĚͬsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚ/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƉĂĐŝƚLJŶĂůLJƐĞƐZĞƐƵůƚƐ ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ϮϬϮϱDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ EŽͲƵŝůĚ;ϭͿ ƵŝůĚ;ϮͿ >K^ ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY >K^ ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZĚ^>dͬd, sĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚt>dͬZd   ϵ ϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϰϯ ϰ͛ ϱϳ͛   ϵ ϭϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϰϳ ϰ͛ ϲϱ͛  ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ϮϬϮϱWDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ EŽͲƵŝůĚ;ϯͿ ƵŝůĚ;ϰͿƵŝůĚͲĂĚĚtůĂŶĞ;ϱͿ >K^ ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY >K^ ĞůĂLJsͬ DĂdžY >K^ ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZĚ^>dͬd, sĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚt>dͬZd sĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚt>d sĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚtZd   Ͳ Ͳ ϴ ϰϲ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭϵ Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ͳ Ͳ ϴ͛ Ϯϭϴ͛ Ͳ Ͳ  & Ͳ Ͳ ϴ ϳϱ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ͳ Ͳ ϴ͛ ϯϮϵ͛ Ͳ Ͳ  Ͳ &  ϴ Ͳ ϲϰ ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϭϬ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϴϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϵ ϰ͛ Ͳ Ϯϯϳ͛ ϳ͛      /DPRXUHX[ 'LFNLQVRQ WĂŐĞϮ &RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV,QF dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐƐŚŽǁƚŚĂƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĞdžŝƚŝŶŐsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZŽĂĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶƉĞĂŬ ƉĞƌŝŽĚǁŝůůĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞůŽŶŐĞƌĚĞůĂLJƐĂŶĚĂůŽǁĞƌůĞǀĞůŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŚĂŶŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƉƌŽũĞĐƚͲŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƐǁŝůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĞůĂLJƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞůĞǀĞůŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ&ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽŶƚŚĞsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZŽĂĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ͘dŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞͬĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƌĂƚŝŽ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƌĞŵĂŝŶƐďĞůŽǁϭ͘Ϭ͖ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŚĂƐŶŽƚďĞĞŶĞdžĐĞĞĚĞĚ͘ƐǁĂƐƉŽŝŶƚĞĚŽƵƚŝŶŽƵƌ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϴ͕ϮϬϭϱƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞĐƚϮϱϬ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐZĞĐĞƐƐKƌĚĞƌĨŽƌŝĚĞƌDŝůů//;ƐĞĞďĞůŽǁͿ͕ƚŚŝƐ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŚĂƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJďĞĞŶƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚĨŽƌŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ/ŵƉĂĐƚ&ĞĞKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĂƉŝƚĂů /ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘  dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂůƐŽŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞůĞǀĞůŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ&͖ ǁŝĚĞŶŝŶŐsĂŶ^ŝĐŬůĞŶZĚƚŽĂĚĚĂƐĞĐŽŶĚǁĞƐƚďŽƵŶĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚůĂŶĞǁŽƵůĚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ ĚĞůĂLJƐĂŶĚƋƵĞƵĞůĞŶŐƚŚƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉŵƉĞĂŬ͘  ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚͬŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZŽĂĚ ůƐŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚǁĂƐĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂƚƚŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϮϱDƵŝůĚ ƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚƚŚĂƚĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƐƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĂĚĚŝŶŐĂƐĞĐŽŶĚĞĂƐƚďŽƵŶĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚůĂŶĞŽŶŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZĚ ƐŽƚŚĂƚůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶƐĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶƐǁŽƵůĚĞĂĐŚŚĂǀĞĂŶĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞůĂŶĞ͘ůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͕ĨŽƌĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͕ŝƐĂŶŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĂĚĚŝŶŐĂƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶ ůĂŶĞ͘ĞƚĂŝůĞĚƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂƌĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĂƐƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐϭͲϯ͘  ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZĚͬŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZĚ/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƉĂĐŝƚLJŶĂůLJƐĞƐZĞƐƵůƚƐ ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ϮϬϮϱDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ;,sͿ ƵŝůĚ;ϭͿ ƵŝůĚͲĂĚĚ>ĂŶĞ;ϮͿƵŝůĚͲĂĚĚ^Zd>ĂŶĞ;ϯͿ >K^ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY>K^ĞůĂLJsͬ DĂdžY >K^ ĞůĂLJ sͬ DĂdžY ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZĚE>dͬd, ŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZĚ>dͬZd ŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZĚ>d ŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZĚZd   Ͳ Ͳ ϴ Ϯϴ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭϲ Ϭ͘ϲϲ Ͳ Ͳ ϱ͛ ϭϯϱ͛ Ͳ Ͳ  Ͳ   ϴ Ͳ Ϯϴ ϵ Ϭ͘Ϭϲ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϬϮ ϱ͛ Ͳ ϭϮϰ͛ Ϯ͛   Ͳ Ͳ ϴ ϮϮ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭϲ Ϭ͘ϱϴ Ͳ Ͳ ϱ͛ ϭϬϮ͛ Ͳ Ͳ  dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĚĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƚŚĞ ŐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĞdžŝƚŝŶŐŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZŽĂĚ͘  ŽƌƐĞƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚͬŝĚĞƌDŝůůƌŝǀĞ ŶĐůŽƐĞĚĂƐƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚŝƐĂůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϮϱWDƵŝůĚƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘dŚŝƐ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞǁŽƵůĚƐĞƌǀĞƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶŝŶŐǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐŝĚĞƌDŝůůƌŝǀĞĨƌŽŵŽƌƐĞƚ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚĂƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞǁŝůůďĞǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘  dƌĂĨĨŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚLJ ƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƐƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚŝƐĂĐŽƉLJŽĨĂůĞƚƚĞƌĚĂƚĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϴ͕ϮϬϭϱŽƵƚůŝŶŝŶŐŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞ ĐƚϮϱϬ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐZĞĐĞƐƐKƌĚĞƌĨŽƌŝĚĞƌDŝůů//͘dŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞůĞƚƚĞƌĂƐƐĞƐƐĞƐĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐĂĨĞƚLJĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͖ŶŽƚĂďůLJĂƚƚŚĞ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚͬŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJ ZŽĂĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐƚŚĞŽŶůLJŚŝŐŚĐƌĂƐŚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘      /DPRXUHX[ 'LFNLQVRQ WĂŐĞϯ &RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV,QF dŚĞƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJŝƐƐƵĞĚϮϬϭϮͲϮϬϭϲsdƌĂŶƐ,ŝŐŚƌĂƐŚ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚĂůƐŽůŝƐƚƐƚŚĞ,ŝŶĞƐďƵƌŐZŽĂĚͬ ŚĞĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌLJZŽĂĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƐƚŚĞŽŶůLJŚŝŐŚĐƌĂƐŚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝƚŚ ĂŶĂĐƚƵĂůͬĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůĐƌĂƐŚƌĂƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϭ͘Ϭϳϴ͘        W͗ͰϮϬϭϱͰϭϱϭϯϳͰdƌĂĨĨŝĐdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůDĞŵŽϮϬϭϳͲϭϮͲϮϮ͘ĚŽĐdž Attachment E October 24, 2017 Bill Miller, Chair Development Review Board Members of the Development Review Board, At its regularly held meeting on October 11, 2017, the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee reviewed the proposal brought forth by Bryan Currier for the applicant. The BPC’s comments are summarized as follows: The Committee’s primary concern for the proposed boardwalk is that its width should be enough to allow safe passage of bikes from opposing directions without contact. Current recreation path is typically 8ft, so the BPC feels this is the minimum width necessary. A concern about railings along the boardwalk was brought up, but the Committee feels that railings are not a concern so long as boardwalk width is sufficient, as identified above. The second proposal for this was to place the path along the streets to the north, paralleling the physical connections to Sommerfield Ave. The Committee is satisfied with either method of the proposed connection, given the above caveat about width along the proposed boardwalk over the wetlands. The other topic discussed was the potential to include a Recreation Path connection along the proposed streets to the south, down to the North-South connection of Russett Rd to the Aguilar land which may be developed at some time in the future. Currently the Recreation Path is not planned to make a connection, but the Committee feels it would be wise to include this new connection. The discussion continued about optimal path for this connection. Though specifics about placement of the path along Russett Rd or Senator St are of less concern at this stage for the committee it may have an impact on the developer. From the Committee’s perspective, the addition of a connection to the South is necessary, though routing is left to the discretion of the developer at this time. The Committee thanks the applicant for their time and willingness to discuss their plans. The Committee also thanks the DRB for their consideration of their recommendation in this matter. Respectfully, Cathy Frank, Vice-Chair, South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee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o: Development Review Board RE: JJJ South Burlington LLC application to build 142 unit Cider Mill II Date: December 28, 2017 Dear Sir or Madam; The proposal to build 142 units in Cider Mill II and connect them to the existing Cider Mill I neighborhood located off of Dorset Street has raised concerns among several Cider Mill I residents, myself included. An updated traffic study reported December 4, 2017 by Lamoureux & Dickinson to O’Leary Burke Civil Associates shows that traffic will increase through Cider Mill I and, more specifically, on Winesap Lane in Cider Mill I. According to their traffic data, Winesap Lane most likely is the preferred travel route for the current 41 residents (18 on Braeburn St and 23 on Sommerfield Ave) as they travel to/ from Cider Mill Drive and Dorset St. The residents of the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II would also travel on Winesap Lane when they opt to exit through Cider Mill I instead of via Hinesburg Road. Based upon the following information and review of traffic data by a retained civil engineering firm, it is requested that JJJ South Burlington be required to build the Cider Mill Road extension to Sommerfield Ave prior to connecting their 142 unit Cider Mill II development to Cider Mill I. 1. The traffic study data shows traffic on Winesap Lane will go from the current 41 vehicles per hour (vph) to 62 vph when 21 additional homes are built on Sommerfield Ave as part of the Cider Mill I build out. When the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II are completed, estimated traffic on Winesap will go to 115 vph (or the suggested & unsupported estimate of 109 vph). The increase from 62 vph to 115 vph is nearly a 85% increase in hourly flow along Winesap. This will increase noise, nuisance and potential safety of children in the area. 2.The current proposed distribution of project traffic in PM peak, Figure 4 of the provided traffic study suggests that 37% of the trips (52 of the total 142) would utilize the existing Cider Mill Drive on Dorset Street. However current census data (https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/) for the distribution of employment for residents in the study area suggest that the portion of traffic destined to Dorset Street may be closer to 60%. It appears (Figure I attachment) that the majority of employment is in the Hill Institutions, Dorset Street itself, University of Vermont, Downtown Burlington and along Shelburne Road. With the given road network and lack of east/ west connections, residents of the proposed 142 units may be inclined to access Dorset Street and travel through our Cider Mill I neighborhood to get there. 3.The City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan (Figure 2 attachment) which was approved by the Planning Commission November 3, 2015 shows Cider Mill Road on the map. Interestingly, it shows the Cider Mill Road extension has already been built. Of course we know that is not the case, but the Comprehensive Plan expects the extension to be built. Since the road is scheduled to be built, it would seem reasonable to build it now instead of adding the increased traffic burden to Cider Mill I. 4.The Cider Mill Road extension was an expectation upon moving into the Cider Mill I community along with possible development in the proposed 142 unit area. As a taxpayer and resident, Cider Mill I residents expected a period of time with increased congestion and traffic and, over a period of time, expected that traffic would revert to a lower overall amount with the Cider Mill Road extension. What is the justification for the expectation not being met now? 5.If the Development Review Board agrees that the road extension is not needed at this time, JJJ South Burlington could put in the road and then be paid back by the future development which occurs north of the solar field. Or perhaps the road cost could be shared between JJJ South Burlington and the future developer north of the solar field. Both developers will be sending traffic into Cider Mill I with their proposals. 6.A petition will be provided to the Development Review Board at the January 2, 2018 board meeting. The petition was signed by over 55 residents that reside in Cider Mill I to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Ave. Thank you for considering these comments. Karen Cubino 70 Winesap Lane, South Burlington, VT (315) 794-5763 karencubino@gmail.com Figure 1 It is interesting to note that South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan for “Current Land Use” shows the Cider Mill Road has already been built and the draft document approved by the Planning Commission November 3, 2015. Link to source: http://www.sburl.com/vertical/Sites/ %7BD1A8A14E-F9A2-40BE- A701-417111F9426B%7D/uploads/ Comp_Plan_Draft_Maps_for_Council_Public_He aring_12-14-15.pdf Figure 2 Katherine Van Woert Edward Van Woert 99 Sommerfield Ave. South Burlington VT 05403 December 28, 2017 City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the Development Review Board: We are unable to attend the meeting on January 2 but would like to give input on the most recent preliminary plan for Cider Mill Phase II. This input is in regard to the north/south wildlife corridor that separates Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II. This wildlife corridor is a critical path that connects significant ecosystems in the northern South Burlington/Wheeler Park area with the very important and substantial wild ecosystem in the area of Shelburne Pond. This connector must be wide and wild enough to provide a viable path between the two areas or both ecosystems will be degraded. This natural corridor as currently proposed is improved from previous iterations and may appear on the map to be adequate. However, there are two proposed features that may look “natural” on the map but are completely incompatible with a wildlife corridor. Both these features, as proposed, jut right into the corridor and pinch the corridor down to a level that makes it ineffective. The first is a proposed small neighborhood park in the NW corner that will need to be maintained. It will need to be bark chipped and/or mowed. Both constant human activity and unnatural surfaces make this proposed park far from a “natural area” as far as wildlife nesting, feeding, and travel are concerned. A children’s park should not be in a wildlife corridor. The second feature is a small storm water pond (the one most NW on the plan) that according to SB Planning staff will need to be fenced. This fenced pond would provide a physical barrier to wildlife movement. In the location proposed, it would negate the value of the pond as a natural area and narrow the currently existing travel lane for wildlife movement to a very great extent. To maintain a viable wildlife corridor, both the park and the pond need to be moved east and out of the corridor to avoid the current north south corridor width from being suddenly pinched in. If the developer provided about three hundred feet of truly natural corridor between Cider Mill I and II (which they have provided for most of this project, it only narrows badly in the NW corner) it would still be less wide than the existing natural corridor that connects north and south but it would make a big difference in keeping wildlife from “dead ending” into a house or fence or swing set. The NW proposed park and fenced pond could move east, replacing duplex units 109/110 and possibly 111/112. That would allow for a much more adequate connection for wildlife between very important natural areas in both South Burlington and Shelburne which is a key value stated clearly in the Town’s Comprehensive and Open Space Plans. The development of Cider Mill II will involve taking down a large white pine woods and disruption of other current natural areas. We hope the developer will plant trees along the connector road between Cider Mill I and II and along the western most edge of the duplex and carriage home buildings to shelter wildlife using the corridor, help each neighborhood have its own “sense of place”, and to follow Comprehensive Plan recommendations to help maintain the SE Quadrant in a more rural/agricultural state. As we all have discussed previously, it is also important that the road connecting Cider Mill I and II be as minimal as possible with speed control features to allow safe wildlife crossing and discourage traffic “cut through”. And finally, we are opposed to a suggestion a few have made to extend Cider Mill Rd. to Sommerfield, primarily for the benefit of Winesap Rd. residents. This is not a “not in my back yard” position: Cider Mill II traffic will come past our house whether Cider Mill Drive is extended or not. But a majority in both neighborhoods (as well as wildlife) will benefit from a lot less traffic and slower traffic speeds if “cutting through” requires multiple turns through Cider Mill I as it does now. Thank you for your consideration on these points. Sincerely, Katherine and Edward Van Woert 1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  MP_17_02_1580 Dorset St & 1699 Hinesburg Rd_JJJ_Cider  Mill II_amendment_2018‐01‐02.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: December 29, 2017  Plans received: December 6, 2017  1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road  Master Plan Application #MP‐17‐02  Meeting date: January 2, 2018  Owner/Applicant  JJJ South Burlington, LLC  21 Carmichael St., Suite 201  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Engineer  O’Leary Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Dr.  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐R1580, 0860‐01731, 0860‐01625_R  SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,  SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection  65.49 acres      Location Map        2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Master Plan application #MP‐17‐02 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved master  plan for a 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases.  The amendment consists of revising the  roadway layout in Phase II (Cider Mill II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to  142 units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road.     PERMIT HISTORY    In 2007, the applicant obtained master plan approval for 109 dwelling units in Cider Mill II, with the area  zoned as Village Residential reserved for future development (MP‐07‐01).  In 2015, the applicant obtained  final plat approval for this same development (SD‐15‐11), which was subsequently amended in 2016 (SD‐ 16‐01).  The current application represents a revision of that layout including addition of 33 units in Cider  Mill II for a total of 142 units in Cider Mill II and 291 units overall.    CONTEXT    Applicant has previously been approved for 109 housing units in Phase II.  In this application, they are  proposing to develop on the northernmost portion of the Cider Mill property, which had previously been  left aside for future phases.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as  Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.    A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  This development (Cider Mill I and II) received dimensional standards waivers from the Board as part of  the Master Plan (#MP‐07‐01).  There are no multi‐family homes currently proposed.  However, the  applicant has requested that the previously approved multi‐family waivers be applied to two‐family  homes, as shown in the below table.     SEQ‐NR  Required  SEQ‐VR  Required  Previously Granted  and/or Requested   Min. Lot Size Single Family  12,000 sq. ft.  12,000 sq. ft.  7,200 sq. ft. granted  Min. Lot Size Two‐Family  24,000 sq. ft.  24,000 sq. ft.  7,200 sq. ft. requested  Min. Lot Size Multi‐Family  40,000 sq. ft.  40,000 sq. ft.  N/A  Max. Building Coverage  15% 15%  42% granted for single,  requested for two‐family  Max. Overall Coverage  30%  30%  60% granted for single,  requested for two‐family  Min. Front Setback  20 ft.  20 ft.  10 ft. granted for multi,  requested for two‐family  Min. Side Setback, Single and Two‐family   10 ft.  10 ft.  N/A  Min. Side Setback, Multi‐family  20 ft.  20 ft.  N/A  Min. Rear Setback  30 ft.  30 ft.  5 ft. granted for multi,  requested for two‐family  3  Max. Building Height Single or Two‐ Family (pitched)  28 ft.  28 ft.  N/A  Max. Building Height Multiple Family  (pitched)  28 ft.  35 ft.  N/A  Stories facing street, Single and Two‐ family  2  2  N/A  Stories below roofline, Single and Two‐ family  2  3  N/A    Staff recommends the Board approve the waiver request to apply the previously approved multi‐family  waivers to the two‐family homes.    The applicant will require a miscellaneous permit for alteration of existing grade in order to meet the  required building heights.  This is discussed in detail in the concurrent application for preliminary plat  approval #SD‐17‐29.    B) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN    Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development regulations states    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;    The applicant is proposing an additional 33 units, for a total of 142 units. This is enumerated and discussed  in the concurrent application for preliminary plat approval #SD‐17‐29.    (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;    Total site coverage for the proposed plan is approximately 28.7%.  The applicant will be providing an  updated number which reflects changes made between submission of the application and this hearing.  This is enumerated and discussed in the concurrent application for preliminary plat approval #SD‐17‐29.    (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property  subject to the master plan;    The applicant is proposing to shift the alignments of Aurora Road, Russett Road and Liberty Lane, and to  eliminate a previously‐shown east west roadway which was previously between Aurora road and Liberty  Lane.  Aurora Road is considered a collector roadway.    (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the  approved master plan application; and/or    4  The proposed Master Plan locates eight homes in two‐family buildings in the area previously identified as  the Northeastern Open Space, four homes in two‐family buildings in the area previously identified as  Western Open Space, and four single family homes in the area identified as Mid Site Open Space. This is  enumerated and discussed in the concurrent application for preliminary plat approval #SD‐17‐29.  (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends  projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan.    The number of dwelling units is proposed to increase by 33 units to 142 units, therefore the vehicle trip ends  are anticipated to increase. Traffic related to this increase is enumerated and discussed in the concurrent  application for preliminary plat approval #SD‐17‐29.    C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Master plans shall  comply with the standards for Planned Unit Development (PUD).      PUD standards are enumerated and discussed in the concurrent application for preliminary plat approval #SD‐ 17‐29.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the  issues  pertaining  to  heights  and planned  unit  development  standards  referenced  in  staff  comments  pertaining to preliminary plat application #SD‐17‐29.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner      MAROON REPRESENTSCURRENT PROPOSAL,BLACK REPRESENTSAPPROVED MASTERPLAN LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 December 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, M. Lawrence, M. Provost, T. O’Leary, R. Brown, R. Jeffers 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: Ms. Keene announced that the January 16th DRB meeting will be held at the police station. Ms. Keene announced that the open position on the DRB is being re-advertised in order to solicit more applicants. 5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC, to subdivide a 47.00 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road: Mr. Marshall reviewed the outstanding items from the previous hearing as follows: a. They have identified the access points in the proposed pump stations. b. The water main size at the entrance will be 8 inches. Instead of a mountable curb, there will be a 25-foot turn radius. c. The name for the public and private part of the road will be the same: Long Drive. The plan will be revised to show this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 PAGE 2 d. They received permission from the owner to narrow the road to 20 feet, but could not get the landscaping plan revised in time. It was turned in today. Mr. Lawrence noted the updates to the landscaping plan including rearranging proposed trees near where the new drive enters between the two houses, moving evergreens slightly because of utility lines, and revisions because of the hammerhead. Ms. Keene said that in looking at the new plan, it doesn’t seem to contain the same information as the previous L-2 sheet. Mr. Lawrence said it was intended to replace L-2. He added they can identify the trees to be removed, if staff wants. They had wanted to more clearly show the trees being retained. He added that the numbers on the trees are keyed into Warren Spinner’s tree survey. Members suggested an additional plan showing trees to be removed. Mr. Lawrence showed the earlier plan indicating all the trees. Members agreed that if the new plan can be an addendum instead of a replacement, the new plan does not have to show the trees to be removed. Ms. Keene also noted that staff had a question with an area of the tree plan where there was a line for existing trees and an additional line for tree preservation. Members wanted this clearly shown on the plan. Mr. Lawrence showed a blown-up version of various new trees, identified by species. Species changed to address concerns of the City Arborist, but Mr. Lawrence said that he intended to confirm species selection with the City Arborist. Mr. Marshall noted that for pricing and bonding, they need to show street trees separate from other trees. Mr. Kochman asked why the diameter of the Oak trees is 1 inch less than that of the Maples. Mr. Lawrence did not remember why but thought it might have to do with cost and failure rate (which goes up with larger trees). A larger tree may take longer to start growing. Mr. Belair noted a minimum of 2.5 inches for street trees. Mr. Marshall requested a change to the wording for the tree preservation condition outside the development lots to accommodate air movement on the golf course and sun access to the greens. Members expressed concern with this request and concluded that they need to deliberate on it. Mr. Marshall also noted that trees not near utilities or building envelopes can be planted sooner. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 PAGE 3 Mr. Wilking said he felt that if the applicant takes down a tree, they should replace that tree somewhere else. This is a rule elsewhere in the city. Mr. Belair felt the Board cannot enforce that condition on the golf course because those trees were not required to be planted; they were existing trees that were incorporated into the design of the golf course. Mr. Wilking expressed that he believes that if one comes down, they must replace it. Mr. Marshall said they are maintaining and supplementing an existing forest, and the regulations don’t speak to that. He felt it was not the same as building a building and having to put in a number of trees. Mr. Belair also stressed that this application must be reviewed under the regulations that were in effect at the time of the Court decision, and the “replacement” rule did not exist then. Mr Marshall said that in reducing the road width to 20 feet, they have also provided more buffering to the existing house. One of the homeowners has already consented to the width reduction. The City Attorney said that if all interested parties don’t agree, the road width can’t be changed. Mr. O’Leary, who lives in one of the 2 houses, said they are OK with the reduction in width and feel that is much better. Mr. Provost, who lives in the other house, said he is also OK with the 20-foot road width. Mr. Brown, representing the Highland Homeowners Association, said they have noticed fluctuation in water pressure lately. The pumps were checked and found to be working perfectly. Mr. Marshall said they are providing an 8-inch main, and there is an agreement to extend that main. He added that water supply might also be affecting the pumps. He also noted that CWD has confirmed there is capacity to add the proposed homes. Mr. Kochman said that the Board has to rely on the CWD’s representation of capacity, and that if the Homeowners Association wishes to contest it, that they must provide information to the contrary. Mr. Provost said he thought the Tree Preservation Plan was Court ordered. He felt the applicant has to decide if they’re building homes or running a golf course. He asked how the Tree Preservation Plan gets monitored over time. Mr. Belair said there is an annual report to him required by the arborist. This will either be in compliance or not. Mr. Provost asked what happens if a buyer comes in and clear cuts a lot for a better view. Mr. Miller said new home owners will be bound by the same Court decision. Mr. Wilking said he felt there should be a homeowner’s association to help insure this. Mr. Marshall agreed this DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 PAGE 4 would be a good approach and could be a natural sub-association of the golf course. They would agree to make that a condition of approval. Mr. O’Leary was concerned with the loss of footprint on his lot and the lost ability for expansion of the house. He also felt that that house #1 of the proposed plan doesn’t serve the interest of preserving trees as it is in the most wooded section. It is also higher than his home and as close to his home as possible with no frontage there and no buffer. He felt that wasn’t well thought out. Mr. Miller said when this happens, the Board can usually help to mitigate the concerns; however, this one is Court approved. Mr. Belair said it can’t be changed for that reason. Mr. O’Leary asked if there is a way to get “human responses” here. Ms. Keene said if there is a mutual agreement to move the house closer to the road, it could happen. Mr. O’Leary also cited the amount of ledge requiring basting which he would prefer not to have. Mr. Cota showed a close up of Lot 1 relative to Mr. O’Leary’s home. Mr. O’Leary indicated that he will reach out to the developer to see if a compromise can be reached. Mr. Provost asked about the construction process noise. Mr. Belair said it can be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. He added that practically, they would have to build the road first to get equipment in to build the houses. Mr. O’Leary said his driveway will have to be regraded because of the change in the road. Mr. Marshall said the applicant will make the driveways as functional as possible with approval to work on the owners’ properties. Mr. Belair noted they typically get a landscaping budget and an estimate of the cost to construct utilities. He wasn’t sure if staff has the authority to require that. He will check to find out. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-17-28 to 2 January 2018. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Request for reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Decision pertaining to preliminary and final plat approval SD-17-18 of South Village Communities: Ms. Jeffers said they are asked for reconsideration of Condition #25, to change “shall” to “if then.” She read the preferred language. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 PAGE 5 Mr. Kochman felt the language was problematic and not clear cut. He felt the developer doesn’t want to be constrained: they don’t want to build the affordable units but still want the density bonus. Mr. Wilking said they can’t force the affordable units until they build 269 units. Mr. Kochman questioned what would happen if they got to unit 270 and hadn’t built affordable units. Where would they go? They would have to be spread around already built “regular” units. Mr. Wilking agreed that is the problem. Mr. Kochman suggested the developer not get the density bonus until it demonstrates they can meet the requirement for distribution of affordable units. Mr. Cota felt that is what the conditions now say. Ms. Jeffers also asked that all the waivers for Phase I and 2 be in Phase 3. She said one had been left out. Mr. Cota then moved to reopen reconsideration of #SD-127-18 on 16 January 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Kochman voting against. 6. Minutes of 5 December 2017: Mr. Cota noted a type at the top of p. 5 and asked to substitute “that” for “tat.” Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 December 2017 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Other Business: There was no other business. a. Requests for Extension: Mr. Belair noted the applicant for #SP-17-34, Harbor Freight, has requested a 1-year extension to that approval. Mr. Cota moved to grant a one-year extension to #SP-17-34 as requested. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 PAGE 6 Mr. Belair presented a request from Hannaford to grant a 3-month extension to approvals #SP- 17-22 and #CU-17-05 for Lake Champlain Market Place. Mr. Cota moved to grant a 3-month extension to #SP-17-22 and #CU-17-05 as requested. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on __________.