Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Dubois DrivePLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RE: HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT This matter came before the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 203 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations on application of Homer & Marie Dubois, hereinafter "Applicant" for approval to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel of land into 42 lots (two (2) open space lots and 40 single family lots), Dubois Drive. This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll, as depicted on a 10 page set of plans, page 1 entitled "Ledge Knoll III, Dubois Drive, So. Burlington, VT Subdivision Plat" prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc, dated 8/20/96. The Applicant was present at all public meetings held relative to this application. Based on evidence submitted at the meetings and as part of the application, the Planning Commission hereby renders the following decision on this application. 1. This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots (40 lots for development and two (2) open space lots). This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84. The sketch plan was reviewed on 4/23/96. 2. This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north by the recently approved 12 lot industrial subdivision owned by Summer Ice Joint Venture, on the east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. 3. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul-de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street in conjunction with a system of streets sharing a common single access currently provides access to 52 dwelling units and this extension would add 40 more units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to 50 units. The applicant is proposing a 400 foot long median from the existing Dubois Drive turn -around to the start of the proposed "loop" road. This median does not negate the fact that 40 additional dwelling units would be added to a system of streets sharing a common single access which already serves 52 units. 4. A 60 foot r.o.w. is being reserved for possible future connection to development on the adjacent property to the east. 5. Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 103 units for development (1.2 x 86). The development area (20 acres plus original development) on this lot as shown on the SEQ zoning map generates a maximum 80 plus units (4 x 20) for development. Since 57 units are already developed, a maximum of 46 units would be available for development. The applicant is proposing 40 lots for development. 6. Non -buildable area: All or a portion of the following lots are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map: 62-68, 70-73, 89 and 90. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. The applicant submitted comments addressing these criteria. 7. C.O. Zone: A portion of the proposed street is located within a CO zone (i.e., wetland buffer) which can not be developed unless the requirements of Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations are met. The applicant submitted a wetlands report addressing these criteria. The report indicated that the attributes listed in Section 3.50 would not be affected adversely. 8. Lot size/frontage: The minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet. The minimum frontage requirement is 85 feet. All lots will meet these minimum requirements. Sheet SP1 - SP3 should show setback requirements for each lot. 9. Recreation path/pedestrian trail: The Official Map shows a proposed recreation path running east - west along the project's southerly boundary. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed this plan and recommends that an easement be granted north from the north loop of Dubois Drive into open space lot #98 then east to the boundary of the property. Pedestrian access to this lot is shown between lots #66 and 67. The Commission recommended that the connection to open space lot #98 should be constructed and defined with an attractive fence (similar to what was done at Village @ Dorset Park) during the construction of the road so that the owners of lots 66 and 67 are well aware that a pedestrian/path easement exists. The Commission also recommended that an easement be provided which connects the 15 foot pedestrian easement on the Green Acres, Inc. property through this development to the 20 foot easement along the north boundary line on the Summer Ice Joint Venture property. 11. Landscaping: The proposed street trees will have a value of $25,795. Also, two (2) trees are required to be planted on each residential lot (Section 412.4 of the subdivision regulations). Any landscaping proposed within the scenic view protection (SVP) area must meet the height limitations imposed by the SVP. 2 12. Scenic View Protection Zone: All or portions of lots #65-73 and 85-90 are located within the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide information regarding the maximum height of buildings allowed on lots located within the SVP. 13. Wetlands: The wetlands, with the associated 50 foot buffer, are shown on the plan. A report was submitted by a professional wetland expert addressing the criteria under Section 3.503 of the zoning regulations for the encroachment of the road in the C.O. Zone. The report indicates that the wetland will not be affected adversely by the proposed encroachment of the road into the wetland and wetland buffer. 14. Sewer: The sewer allocation requested is 19,100 gpd. The policy of the Commission has been to grant allocation for an 8-10 year period. Any portion of the project not developed within this time period would require reapproval for sewer allocation. 15. Traffic: The applicant submitted a traffic study which evaluated potential impacts to safety at the intersection of Dubois Drive and Hinesburg Road, the need for any turning lanes, and a signal warrant analysis. The analysis indicated that level of service will be "C", no signal is warranted, and turning lanes are not needed. 16. Sidewalk: Sidewalks will be provided along the proposed street. 17. Lighting: Plans show proposed street light locations as required by Section 408 of the Subdivision regulations. 18. Mailbox cluster: The plans show a mailbox cluster area located within the street r.o.w. City policy has been to require mailbox clusters to be served by a separate pull-out and to be located outside the street r.o.w. 19. Legal documents: The applicant did not submit for review and approval by the City Attorney all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g., irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public road, and pedestrian trail easement). 20. School Impact: The School Superintendent has indicated that Central School can accommodate the enrollment impact from the development. 21. PUD criteria: The applicant submitted a report which addresses each of the criteria under Section 26.151 of the zoning regulations and how the project complies with each one of the criteria. The report indicates that the development will comply with all criteria. 3 22. Other: Each house will be assessed road, school and recreation impact fees in accordance with the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. CONCLUSIONS 1. Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of dwelling units served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to 50 units. The proposed development would extend an existing cul-de-sac street to serve the 40 new dwelling units. This would result in 92 dwelling units being served by a system of streets sharing a common single access. The Planning Commission concludes that the requirements of Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations are not being met. 2. Planned residential developments (PRD's) are required to comply with the standards contained in Section 26.151(a)-(1) of the zoning regulations and Section 417(a) - (1) of the subdivision regulations. Specifically, Sections 26.151(f) and 417(f) require that proposed developments not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities. The project as designed will serve 92 dwelling units with a system of streets that share a common single access. The failure to provide at least two separate access points could compromise efficient and adequate emergency service. Therefore, the Commission is unable to make a positive finding that the requirements of Section 26.151(f) of the zoning regulations and Section 417(f) of the subdivision regulations will be met. nFrTgTnN Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the South Burlington Planning Commission hereby denies the Applicant's request to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel of land into 42 lots (two (2) open space lots and 40 single family lots), Dubois Drive. This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll. The reasons for denial are as follows: 1. The application does not comply with or satisfy the requirements of Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations. The proposal would add 40 dwelling units to a system of streets which share a common single access and which currently provide access to 52 dwelling units. This would result in a total of 92 dwelling units being served by a system of streets which share a common single access. 2. The application does not comply with or satisfy the requirements of Section 26.151(f) of the zoning regulations and Section 417(f) of the subdivision regulations. The failure to 4 provide at least two points of access to serve 92 dwelling units could cause an unreasonable burden on the City to provide adequate emergency service. U-.. S c-J)P-WC --t-4 Dated this day jTr9t, 1996 at South Burlington, Vermont (Dubois.1) Chairman "or Clerk South Burlington Planning Commission 5 Ki ENTAL COURT 233 North Main St,, 1st Floor Barre, VIr 05641 DEC'16T ' December it 1997 SrMEL. PA(e d FLFTc)qEq pc In re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois Environmental Court Docket No. E96-166 Enclosed is the Order issued by Judge Merideth Wright 'relative to the above -referenced matter. Sincerely, Carolyn A. Hutchinson, Clerk, Environmental Court CAH: ch Copies to: Robert J. Perry, Esq, William Alexander Fead„E,9q. Joseph S. Mclean, Esq.{/ William O. Fisk -Awl 6/L 30Vd L5:80 (3ri•L) L6.' 96 a�C 1 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } In Re Appeal of: } HOMER and MARIE DUBOIS } } } I Docket No. E96-166 DECISION AND ORDER Homer and Marie Dubois appealed the South Burlington Planning Commission's denial of preliminary, plat approval for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll Planned residential development under §203 of the .Subdivision Regulations, An evidentiary hearing was held in this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. Appellant -Applicants .Homer and Marie .Dubois are represented by, Robert J. perry, Esq.; the City of South Burlington is represented by Joseph Sy. McLean, Esq.; a group of homeowners in the earlier Phases of the Ledge Knoll development is represented - by William A. Fead; and additional homeowner. William 0. Fisk, entered his appearance as. an Interested party but did not file any separate memoranda. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments at trial and the memoranda filed by the parties, they Court finds and concludes as follows. Appellants own an 85.98-a&e parcel of land, with access from Hinesburg Road, in the Southeast Quadrant zoning district. Their property is bounded on ' the north by property of Summer Ice Joint Ventures. Inc., (formerly the property of Green Acres, Inc.). on the east by property of Green Acres, Inc.. on the south by property of D. Wessel. and on the west by a number of small parcels fronting on Hinesburg Road. It has access to Hinesburg Road by Dubois Drive, a 60-foot- wide right-of-way between two of the parcels fronting Hinesburg Road, and by Highland Terrace. Section 103 of the City's Subdivision Regulations defines local street as a street "intended to serve primarily as access to abutting properties, and which"," . is not intended to be used by through traffic." Collector street -is defined as a street "which serves or is designed to carry traffic from local streets to the system of major streets, and which may serve limited abutting non-residential uses or districts." Arterial street is defined as a street "which serves or is designed. to be used primarily as a route for traffic between communities or I 6/9 30b'3 ZovdV113ZI I is 65 : 90 (ani) 66 9I ro major development areas." The collector and arterial streets closest to the property are Van Sicklen Road to the south, Hinesburg Road to the west, the planned but not constructed Swift Street Extension to the north and Brownell Road in Williston to the east. Dubois Drive, Knoll Circle. and Highland Terrace, serving the existing Ledge Knoll development, and the proposed extension of Dubois Drive in an additional loop Into the proposed Phase III Ledge Knoll development, are all classified as local streets. Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll development (the "existing Ledge Knoll development") were built in the mid-1980s. They consist of a total of 57 single- family residential lots. Vehicles from 51 of the lots must travel over Dubois Drive to reach Hinesburg Road either via Dubois Drive or Highland Road. Dubois Drive Is a local subdivision street that extends easterly from Hinesburg Road. Dubois Drive terminates In a cul-de-sac at its easterly end. Highland Terrace is a local subdivision street extending southerly from Dubois Drive between Lots 40 and 41 of the existing Ledge Knoll development, and turning east onto Hinesburg road. Knoll Circle is a horseshoe -shaped local subdivision street, both arms of which exit onto Dubois Drive, one between lots 7 and. 43 and the other between lots 57 and 25 of the existing Ledge Knoll development. Appellants received final plat approval for Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll development in May, 1984 from the South Burlington Planning Commission. They did not. appeal the conditions of that approval. That approval provided a phasing schedule authorizing construction of Phase I (40 lots) in 1984-85 and of Phase II (17 lots) in 1986-86. Also in 1984, Appellants had sought conceptual approval for 69 condominium units to be constructed on what is now called the Phase III property. at that time referred to as "Project II." (Appellants later revised their intended use of the Phase III property from condominiums to single family residences, but they did not apply for plat approval for Phase IIT until the application at issue in the present appeal.) The 1984 approval specifically required that Highland Terrace be extended"' to Dubois Drive after 50 units, which Appellants did. It alrequired that -- "Project 11Tso" (the then -condominium project for Phase III) be submitted with two additional accesses: a connector street to the property to the north (then the Goodrich property) as well as a second southerly access (other than Highland Terrace). 61b a�vd 3oviviazills 95 90 (aril) L6 9yI ��Q,. l In 1993, Green Acres, Inc., the owner of the former Goodrich property to the north, applied for approval to create a commercial/industrial subdivision on that property to Appellants' north. While that application was pending, the then - City Planner recommended to Appellants' representative that Appellants submit a letter expressing their concerns regarding their, access to roadways in this proposed subdivision and that they participate before the Planning Commission regarding the Green Acres application. In June 1993, Mr. Dubois submitted to the Planning Commission a short letter expressing his concern regarding access to the "land behind Ledge Knoll off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington." He expressed his intent to subdivide that land "in the relatively near, future," and asked for the issue of access to Ledge Knoll to be "taken into consideration, in the Planning Commission's review of the Green Acres subdivision. In June 1994. the Planning Commission approved the Green Acres application for subdivision approval, without a roadway connection or other right-of-way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or to the proposed Ledge Knoll Phase III property.. Nor did a November 1994 revision of the June 1994 Green Acres subdivision approval contain such a connection. Appellants did not appeal either the June 1994 Green Acres commercial/industrial subdivision approval or its November 1994 revision. In 1996, Summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc. (Summer Ice) succeeded to the ownership of those portions of the Green Acres property northerly of and adjoining the existing Ledge Knoll and proposed Phase III property. In July 1996, Summer Ice applied for and obtained subdivision approval fora revised plat closely resembling the June 1994 Green Acres subdivision approval, and also without a roadway connection to the Phase III property or the existing, roadway system in Ledge Knoll. A ppellants did not appeal the July 1996 Summer Ice subdivision approval. In June, 1996, Appellants Piled the application on appeal in the present case seeking preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll development. Section 14 of the application form specifically,,,:., Inquires what waivers from the Subdivision Regulations are desired by the applicant: Appellants answered "none." The application proposes to subdivide a 32.89-acre parcel of land to the east of the existing Ledge Knoll development into forty (40) residential lots and two parcels of open space. It provides a 60-foot right-of-way potential connection to the land to the east of Appellants' land, but there is "no through roadway existing on that parcel to the east. 3 ec /C 7�'1Wl 7nW.TV'777 r r r Q 0 T. In7R ^. s The sole roadway access to proposed Phase III extends along the southerly boundary of the property from the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac in the existing Ledge Knoll development. It is a divided roadwayl approximately 500 feet long, consisting of two fifteen -foot -wide paved lanes separated by a raised Pour -foot - wide median strip. This roadway is placed so as to avoid any of the wetland or wetland buffer strip on the remainder of the property between the existing Ledge Knoll development and the proposed phase III. Traffic from fifty-one of the fifty-seven existing Ledge Knoll lots must travel over some portion of Dubois Drive before choosing whether to access Hinesburg Road directly from Dubois Drive or by turning onto Highland Terrace. The proposal will add an additional forty lots sending traffic to Hinesburg Road along Dubois Drive. The proposal does not provide for any right-of-way or connection street to or across lands to the south. The Court cannot find from the evidence that Appellants attempted to obtain a right-of-way or other connection of access across lands to the south to Van Sicklen Road, Hinesburg Road, or any other collector or arterial street. They did not show a topographic or other condition making It undesirable or impracticable to continue a roadway from one of the adjoining properties, except for showing that the layout of the property to the north was no longer adapted to providing a northerly access. They did not show that it was undesirable or impracticable to obtain approval .to use any portion of the wetland or wetland buffer areas to increase the number of roadways serving the proposed Phase III. I. Discriminatory Aavizcation Appellants argue that the Planning Commission has discriminatorily applied the "additional connections" requirement of section 401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations to their 'project. They presented evidence regarding four developments granted subdivision approval by the Planning Commission without more than one access: Stonehedge Condominiums (also known as Glenwood); Overlook -at -Spear Condominiums; Cedar Ridge development; and the Village at Dorset Park. We need not examine whether each of these projects met the - roadway access requirements of the regulations as they existed when the projects. ' were approved, or whether they qualified for a waiver of that requirement under i This divided roadway cannot qualify as providing two access roads; traffic to and from Phase III must travel over it, and must travel over the single -access segments of Dubois Drive within the existing Ledge Knoll development. 4 IP present regulations. because Appellants have not shown bad faith or intentional discrimination on the basis of an invidious category such as race, creed, color or religion. Nor have Appellants shown that the Planning Commission has engaged in a Pattern of discrimination consciously practiced. They have not made out their claim of discriminatory application of a civil regulation. We also note that a number of other subdivisions in the City approved in the 19803 were required to provide two separate street accesses to collector or arterial streets, including Appellants' Butler Farms subdivision; the Oak Creek subdivision; the Foxcroft subdivision; the Nowland I subdivision; and the Pinnacle at Spear subdivision. II.. Waiver t Appellants argUe that by approving the Summer Ice plan without access for Appellants' project the' City effective) waived the condition in y � Appellants, 1984 approval requiring access to the north. Appellants may have had good business reasons for filing appeals of the 1994 Green Acres approvals or the 1998 Summer Ice approvals, which fail to provide for connection of access from Ledge Knoll to Hinesburg Road or Spear Street Extension. Appellants nevertheless are bound by their failure to appeal those approvals as an interested party. 24 V.S.A. §4472. . No agent or official of the City made any express waiver 'to Appellants of Appellants' requirement to provide an adequate second access to their property prior to submittal or approval of their Phase III proposal. We cannot conclu•dee that the City's approval of the Summer Ice site plan without a connection to Ledge Knoll constituted any kind of implied waiver to Appellants of either the regulatory requirement of additional connections, §401.1, or of the condition of their 1984 Phase I/II approval requiring them to . provide a second access prior . to approval of Phase M. III. Merits of Phase III al2plication Section 401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations prohibits more than fifty dwelling units from being served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector -street, "unless,<;.^.,. additional connections to other streets" are approved by the Planning Commission. Traffic from fifty-one of the fifty-seven existing Ledge Knoll lots is already served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to Hinesburg Road, and the proposal will add an additional forty lots to that common single access. Appellants' proposal violates this requirement. Unlike §401.1(a), which allows the E1 6/L -3add 3OVdV13Z1I.L9 00:60 (3fl.l) L6 . 9; '03Q Planning Commission and hence this Court to modify the requirement, 8401.1(9) contains no such waiver provision. Appellants must either comply with 8401.1(g) or must apply under §513.1 for a waiver. The Planning Commission did not have a waiver application before it, and did not rule on the criteria for a waiver contained in §513.1. Therefore, this Courtshould not consider the waiver issues until interested persons have had the opportunity to be heard on them and the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to rule. C i tf' v. Winooski Zoning Board, 151 Vt. 9, 13 (1989); In r4 Ma 1 Tr Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991). Like 8401.1(g), the remainder of §401 seeks, among other things, to ensure emergency vehicle access and to facilitate traffic circulation as much as practicable. Section 401.1(a) requires the arrangement of streets in a subdivision to: Provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and. local streets through adjoining properties which` are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fine protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as sewers, water and drainage facilities.,to That subsection allows the Planning Commission. and hence this Court,/modify this requirement if "topographic or other conditions make such continuances undesirable or impracticable," We cannot find from the evidence that topographic or other conditions make it undesirable or impracticable to continue some of the interior roadways from Ledge Knoll Phase III to the north, to the south or to the east.- That evidence may exist. but the Court cannot make the required findin_ from the evidence submitted in this appeal, Section 401.1(k) (1) (b) also addresses access from a private roadway which serves a multi -family residential development.' The criteria allow such a proposed private roadway to have a single access on a public roadway if it serves no more than ten units, and to serve up to twenty units if it has two points of access on a public roadway. Subsection 3 allows the Planning Commission, and hence this Court, to permit the thresholds described in these criteria to be exceeded upon a determination that "increasing the number of units serviced [sic] by a private roadway will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the community." We cannot find from the evidence that an increase to forty units (or to ninety-one if the existing Ledge Knoll development's units are considered) will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the 0 community. especially the potential lack of access ambulance) if there is a blockage or bottleneck onbthe single accessency ides (fire II or along the single access segments of Dubois Drive in Phase MIS to Phase III Section 417 of the Subdivision Regulations provides the standards by which the Planning Commission. and hence this Court, must evaluate this proposal. Due to the potential problem for emergency access we evidence that the application at issue In cannot conclude from the PP n tappeal will not cause an to provide municipal or unreasonablele burden on the ability of the City Y governmental services and facilities. §417(f). Due to the fact that only a single access is provided, no connection is proposed to the properties to the east and _south, and no §513 waiver has been obtained regarding connection to the property to the north, we cannot conclude from the evidence that the application at - hi hissue in this appeal will provide efficient layoutg and uali construction and maintenance of streets and � � installation, with the City's street and utilities plans, or that it w ll�rtoes and will conform with adjoining properties in the extension of roadwa s. provide for cooperation Moreover. Y §§417(j) and (k). . In the absence of a right-of-way or street (other ,than Highland Terrace) connecting Dubois Drive to an arterial or collector street, the Phase III Proposal does not provide the second southerly access specifically contem lated by the May, 1984. Planning Commission a p approved, approval before a Phase III could be Accordingly, for the 'reasons stated in this decision, preliminary site ply approval of the proposal must be DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Appellant -Applicants' submitting alternative proposals to the Planning Commission in the future, or to their submitting to the Planning Commission applications for waivers under §513.'1. Dated at Barre, Vermont. this 12tb day of December,. 1997. Ot Merideth wri Environment Judge 7 6/6 '3Jd3 3Jv,1VIZZ1I19 10 60 (3n.L) L6 . 9i 'o3Q �i :1 • -4486 255 North •St., Ist Floor Barre, Vr 05641 December A 1997 In re: Appeai of Homer & Marie Dubois Environmental Court Docket No. E96-166 r DEC' 1 jar Sr"ZEL' PAGE 6 FLETCHER PC Enclosed is the Order issued by Judge Merideth W matter. right 'relative to the above -referenced Sincerely, Carolyn A. Hutchinson, CIerk, EnvironmentalCourt CAH:ch Copies to: Robert J. Perry, Esq. William Alexander Fead„Esq, Joseph S. Mclean, Esq, _ William 0. Fisk Gil L5 90 Can.LI L6 9ti a�a In Re Appeal of: HOMER and MARIE DUBOIS STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } } } } } CISION AN Docket No. E96-166 Homer and Marie Dubois appealed the South Burlington Planning Commission's denial of preliminary plat approval for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll Planned residential development under §203 of the .Subdivision Regulations. An evidentiary hearing was held in this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. Appellant -Applicants .Homer and Marie .Dubois are represented by. Robert J. Perry, Esq.; the City of South Burlington is represented by Joseph Sr. McLean, Esq.; a group of homeowners in the earlier Phases of the Ledge Knoll development is represented by William A. Fead; and additional homeowner. William 0. Fisk, entered his a Party but did not file any separate memoranda. pPearsnce an interested Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments at trial and the memoranda filed by the parties, the Court finds and concludes as follows. Appellants own an 85.98-acre parcel of land, with access from Hinesburg Road, in the Southeast Quadrant zoningdistrict. Their property P Arty is bounded on the north by property of Summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc., (formerly the property Of Green Acres, Inc.), on the east by property of Green Acres, Inc., on the south by property of D. Wessel. and on the west by a number of small parcels fronting on Hinesburg Road. It has access to Hinesburg Road by Dubois Drive, a 60-foot- wide right-of-way between two of the parcels fronting Hinesburg Road, and by Highland Terrace. ; Section 103 of the City's Subdivision Regulations defines local street as a street "intended to serve primarily as access to abutting properties, and which" is not intended to be used by through traffic." Collector street 'is defined as x a street "which serves or is designed to carry traffic from local streets to the system of major streets, and which may serve limited abutting non-residential uses or districts." Arterial street is defined as a street "which serves or is designed, to be used primarily as a route for traffic between communities or 1 6/6 3ov3 30viv"I3Z.LI1S es: go (3n.L) t6 . 9ti major development areas." The collector and arterial streets closest to the property are Van Sicklen Road to the south. Hinesburg Road to the west, the planned but not constructed Swift Street Extension to the north and Brownell Road in Williston to the east. Dubois Drive, Knoll Circle. and Highland Terrace, serving the existing Ledge Knoll development, and the proposed extension of Dubois Drive in an additional loop Into the proposed Phase III Ledge Knoll development, are all classified as local streets. Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll development (the "existing Ledge Knoll development") were built in the mid-1980s. They consist of a total of 57 single- family residential lots. Vehicles from 51 of the lots must travel over Dubois Drive to reach Hinesburg Road either vim' Dubois Drive or Highland Road. Dubois Drive Is a local subdivision street that extends easterly from Hinesburg Road. Dubois Drive terminates in a cul-de-sac at its easterly end.,, Highland Terrace is a local subdivision street extending southerly from Dubois Drive between Lots 40 and 41 of the existing Ledge Knoll development, and turning east onto Hinesburg Road. Knoll Circle is a horseshoe -shaped local subdivision street, both arms of which exit onto Dubois Drive, one between lots 7 and. 43 and the other between lots 57 and 25 of the existing Ledge Knoll ' development. Appellants received final plat approval for Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll development in May, 1984 from the South Burlington Planning Commission. They did not appeal the conditions of that approval. That approval provided a phasing schedule authorizing construction of Phase I (40 lots) in 1984-85 and of Phase II (17 lots) in 1985-86. Also in 1984, Appellants had sought conceptual approval for 69 condominium units to be constructed on what is now called the Phase III property, at that, time referred to as "Project II." (Appellants later revised their intended use of the Phase III property from condominiums to single family residences, but they did not apply for plat approval for Phase III until the application at issue in the present appeal.) The 1984 approval specifically required that Highland Terrace be extended; to Dubois Drive after 50 units, which Appellants did. It also required that "Project II" (the then -condominium project for Phase III) be submitted with two additional accesses: a connector street to the property to the north (then the Goodrich property) as well as a second southerly access (other than Highland Terrace) E 6/b 3ovd 3ovdV IZZ11 3 95 90 (VII) L6 . 9 i ,Jac In 1993 Green A, • es, Inc., the owner of the former Goodrich property to the north, applied for approval to create a commercial/industrial subdivision on that property to Appellants' north. While that application was pending, the then - City Planner recommended to Appellants' representative that Appellants submit a letter expressing their concerns regarding their access to roadways in this proposed subdivision and that they participate before the Planning Commission regarding the Green Acres application. In June 1993, Mr. Dubois submitted to the Planning Commission a short letter expressing his concern regarding access to the "land behind Ledge Knoll off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington." He expressed his intent to subdivide that land "in the relatively near future," and asked for the issue of access to Ledge Knoll to be "taken into consideration" in the Planning Commission's review of the Green Acres subdivision. In June 1994, the Planning Commission ap proved the Green Acres application for subdivision approval, without a roadway connection or other right-of-way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or to the proposed Ledge Knoll Phase III property. Nor did a November 1994 revision of the June 1994 Green Acres subdivision approval contain such a connection. Appellants did not appeal either the June 1994 Green Acres commercial/industrial subdivision approval or its November 1994 revision. In 1996, Summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc. (Summer Ice) succeeded to the ownership of those portions of the Green Acres adjoining the existing Ledge Knoll and Property northerly of .and. proposed Phase III property. In July, 1996, Summer Ice applied for and obtained subdivision approval for a revised plat closely resembling the June 1994 Green Acres subdivision approval, and also without a roadway connection to the Phase III property or the existing.. roadway system in Ledge Knoll. Appellants did not appeal the July 1996 Su mer Ice subdivision approval. 11 In June, 1996, Appellants filed the application on appeal in the present case seeking preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll development. Section 14 of the application form specifically.,._ y Inquires what waivers from the Subdivision Regulations are desired by the applicant; Appellants answered "none." The application proposes to subdivide a 32.89-acre parcel of land to the east of the existing Ledge Knoll development into forty (40) residential lots and two parcels of open space. It provides a 60-foot right-of-way potential connection to the land to the east of Appellants' land, but there is `no through roadway existing on that parcel to the east. 3 !,is znWaV777rTTa FG'Qt) e7.11T) /.R 6T •�,,.. The sole roadway access to proposed Phase III extends along the southerly boundary of the property from the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac in the existing Ledge Knoll development. It is a divided roadwayl approximately 500 feet long, consisting of two fifteen -foot -wide paved lanes separated by a raised Pour -foot - wide median strip. This roadway is placed so as to avoid any of the wetland or wetland buffer strip on the remainder of the property between the existing Ledge Knoll development and the proposed Phase III. Traffic from fifty-one of the fifty-seven existing Ledge Knoll lots must travel over some portion of Dubois Drive before choosing whether to access Hinesburg Road directly from Dubois Drive or by turning onto Highland Terrace. The proposal will add an additional forty lots sending traffic to Hinesburg Road along Dubois Drive. The proposal does not provide for any right-of-way or connection street to or across lands to the south. The Court cannot find from the evidence that Appellants attempted to obtain a right-of-way or other connection of access across lands to the south to Van Sicklen Road, Hinesburg Road, or any other collector or arterial street. They did not show a topographic or other condition making it undesirable or impracticable to continue a roadway from one of the adjoining properties, except for showing that the layout of the property to the north was no longer adapted to providing a northerly access. They did not show that it was undesirable or impracticable to obtain approval.to use any portion of the wetland or wetland buffer areas to Increase the number of roadways serving the proposed Phase III. I. Discriminatory Apollcation Appellants argue that the Planning Commission has discriminatorily applied the "additional connections" requirement of section 401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations to their ' project. They presented evidence regarding four developments granted subdivision approval by the Planning Commission without more than one access: Stonehedge Condominiums (also known as Glenwood); Overlook -at -Spear Condominiums; Cedar Ridge development; and the Village at Dorset Park. We need not examine whether each of these projects met the roadway access requirements of the regulations as they existed when the projects were approved, or whether they qualified for a waiver of that requirement under 1 This divided roadwayu cannot qualify as providing two access roads; traffic to and from Phase III must travel over it, and must travel over the single -access segments of Dubois Drive within the existing Ledge Knoll development. 4 10 Present regulations. because Appellants ,have not shown bad faith or intentional discrimination on the basis of an invidious category such as race, creed, color or religion. Nor have Appellants shown that the Planning Commission has engaged in a pattern of discrimination conscious) practiced. ade out their claim of discriminatory application of acivil regulation. not We also note that a number of other subdivisions in the City approved the I980s were required to provide two separate street accesses to collector or arterial streets, including Appellants' Butler Farms subdivision; the Oak Creek subdivision; the Foxcroft subdivision; the Nowland I subdivision; and the Pinnacle at Spear subdivision. II. Waiver t Appellants argue that by approving the Summer Ice plan without access for Appellants' project, the' City effective) waived the condition in Appellants, Ppellants' 1984 approval requiring access to the north. Appellants may have had good business reasons for filing appeals of the 1994 Green Acres approvals or the 1996 Summer Ice approvals, which fail to provide for connection of acCess from Ledge Knoll to Hinesburg Road or Spear Street Extension. Appellants nevertheless are bound by their failure to appeal those approvals as an interested p 94472, . arty. 24 Q.S.A. No agent or official of the City made any express waiver 'to Appellants of Appellants' requirement to provide an adequate second access to their property prior to submittal or approval of their Phase III proposal. We cannot conclude that the City's approval 'of. the Summer Ice site plan without a connection to Ledge Knoll constituted any kind of implied waiver to Appellants of either the regulatory requirement of additional connections, §401.I, or of the condition of their 1984 Phase I/II approval requiring them to Provide a second access prior.,_ to approval of Phase III. III. Merits of Phase III application Section 401.i(g) of the Subdivision Regulations prohibits more than fifty dwelling units from being served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector -street, "unless; : additional connections to other streets" areapproved by the Planning Commission. �. Traffic from fifty-one of the fifty-seven existing Ledge Knoll lots is already served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to Hinesburg Road, and the proposal will add an additional forty lots to that common single access. Appellants' proposal violates this requirement. Unlike §401.1(a), which allows the 5 61L 3ovd 3ovdVIZZ1110 0 0 : 6 0 (VU) L6 . 9I -o3a Planning Commission and hence this Court to modify the requirement, §401.1(8) contains no such waiver provision. Appellants must either comply with §401.1(g) or must apply under §513.1 for a waiver. The Planning Commission did not have a waiver application before it, and did not rule on the criteria for a waiver contained in 6513.1. Therefore, this Court should not consider the waiver issues until interested persons have had the opportunity to be heard on them and the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to rule. C1�3 f�fi v. Wi oor� ski ZDafnBo�.�.d, 151 Vt. 9, 13 (1969); In rQ Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991). Like §401.1(g), the remainder of §401 seeks, among other things, to ensure emergency vehicle access and to facilitate traffic circulation as much as practicable. Section 401.1(a) requires the arrangement of streets in a subdivision to: Provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties which` are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fine protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed . utilities and public services such as sewers, water and drainage facilities. to That subsection allows the Planning Commission, and hence this Court,/modify this requirement If "topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable." We cannot find from the evidence -that topographic or other conditions make it undesirable or impracticable to continue some of the interior roadways from Ledge Knoll Phase III to the north, to the south or to the east.- That evidence may exist, but the Court cannot make the required finding from the evidence submitted in this appeal. Section 401.1(k) (1) (b) also addresses access from a private roadway which serves a multi -family residential development.' The criteria allow such a proposed private roadway to have a single access on a public roadway if it serves no more than ten units, and to serve up to twenty units if it has two points of access on a public roadway. Subsection 3 allows the Planning Commission, and hence this Court, to permit the thresholds described in these criteria to be exceededY upon a determination that "increasing the number of units serviced(sicl by a private roadway will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the community." We cannot find from the evidence that an Increase to forty units (or to ninety-one if the existing Ledge Knoll development's units are considered) will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the N. community, especially the potential lack of access by emergency vehicles (fire or ambulance) if there is a blockage or bottleneck on the single access to Phase or along the single access segments of Dubois Drive in Phase I/II. III Section 417 of the Subdivision Regulations provides the standards by which the Planning Commission, and hence this Court, must evaluate this proposal. Due to the potential problem for emergency access, we cannot conclude from the evidence that the application at issue in this appeal will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities. §417(f). Due to the fact that only a single access is provided, no connection is propoSed to the properties to the east and -south, and no §513 waiver has been obtained regarding Connection to the Pr Perty to the north, we cannot conclude from the eviden ee that the application at issue in this appeal will provide efficient layout and high -quality, installation, construction and maintenance of streets and public facilities and will conform with the City,s street and utilities plans, or that It. will provide for cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways. Y 1§417(j) and (k). Moreover, in the absence of a rfght-of-way or street (other than Highland Terrace) connecting Dubois Drive to an arterial or collector street, the P proposal does not provide the second southerly access specifically hose III t by the May, 1984. Planning Commission a cally contemplated approved, approval before a Phase III could be Accordingly. for the reasons stated in this decision, preliminary site plan approval of the proposal must be DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Appellant -Applicants' submitting alternative proposals to the Planning Commission in the future. or to their submitting to the Planning Commission applications for waivers under §513. i. Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 12tt day of December,, 1997. ALI Merideth Wri Environmen Judge 7 6/6 '3�Yd aOdd�Bi3ZLIL9 [0 60 (an.0 L6. 9[ '�aQ STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 OF COUNSEL PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAUXFIRM2555@AOL.COM) ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) May 6, 1997 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 N. Main St., 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 Re: In re: Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: By this letter, the City of South Burlington adopts and incorporates into its prior Memoranda the clarifying and responsive statements set forth in the Homeowners' Response to Appellants' Response to Proposed Findings of Fact, dated May 5, 1997. Hopefully, no further responsive pleadings will be forthcoming. In addition, I have enclosed a diskette which contains the City of South Burlington's and Dubois Drive Homeowners' Stipulated Findings of Fact for your use. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions. JSM/maf Enclosure cc: William A. Fead, Robert J. Perry, Joe Weith (w/out SON3276.COR Ve*epS. y yours, JMcLean Esq. (w/out Esq. (w/out Enclosure) Enclosure) Enclosure) STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOJCErMD) STEVENF. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAUXFIRM2555@AOL.COM0 ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M EUSTACE (-ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) VIA HAND DELIVERY May 5, 1997 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 N. Main St., 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 Re: In Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -referenced matter is the City of South Burlington's Response to Appellants' Memorandum. In addition, I have enclosed the City's Exhibits in this case. JSM/dah Enclosures cc: William A. Fead, Robert J. Perry, Joe Weith' SON447.COR Ver truly yours, Jo ph S. McLean Esq. (via facsimile) Esq. (via facsimile) STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 IN RE APPEAL OF HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT Docket No. E96-166 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS' MEMORANDUM NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and submits the following memorandum in response to Appellants' memorandum in support of their appeal, dated April 25, 1997. Memorandum The Appellants have submitted a memorandum to this Court in connection with their appeal in Docket No. E96-166.1 In that memorandum, Appellants argue that this Court should conclude that the roadway design for their proposed Ledge Knoll Phase III project "provides satisfactory access for emergency service without unreasonable burdens on the City" or, in any event, is consistent with "precedents of the Planning Commission." See Appellants' Memorandum, dated April 25, 1997, at 1. For the reasons set forth herein, Appellants' arguments are without merit' and this Court should reject them. 1 To date, Appellants have not requested that this Court find any specific facts regarding the evidence presented at the April 15, 1997 merits hearing in this matter. Accordingly, the City must assume that they do not dispute the facts set forth in the City's and Homeowners' Stipulated Findings of Fact, dated April 28, 1997. 1 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW F.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 I. Appellant's Proposal Does Not Meet the Requirements of Either the Subdivision Regulations or Their Prior Approval. In their memorandum, Appellants only marginally address the threshold issue on appeal -- whether their Phases III project, as proposed, has two access roads in compliance with the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (the "Regulations"). They contend, with limited analysis, that (1) the connection of Highland Terrace to Dubois Drive satisfies the requirements of 5401.1(g) of the Regulations; (2) the proposed extension of Dubois Drive along the southern boundary of the property provides the "second southerly access" required by their 1984 approval; and (3) the median strip proposed for the extension of Dubois Drive creates adequate alternative access. See Appellants' Memorandum, at 2. This Court should conclude that Appellants' proposal does not meet the requirements of the Regulations. Both at trial and in their filing, Appellants concede that no dual access exists for that approximately 500 foot "stretch of road between Highland Terrace and the westerly leg of Knoll Circle." Id. at 4. There are currently fifty-two (52) units east of Highland Terrace "sharing a common single access to [Hinesburg Road,] an arterial street," See Exhibit B, at §401.1(g) (emphasis added). Appellants' proposal, as configured, would increase to ninety-two (92) the number of units using that section of Dubois Drive for access to Hinesburg Road. Accordingly, with or without a median strip, Appellants' proposal is inconsistent with §401.1(g) since it fails to provide 2 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON. VT 05402-1507 "additional connections to other streets," and requires an unreasonable number of units to utilize the "common single access" strip from Dubois Drive to Hinesburg Road. Id. Further, Appellants proposal does not comply with the requirements of their 1984 Planning Commission approval for Phases I and II. That approval expressly required that Appellants' Phase III proposal provide a "second southerly access.j2 See Exhibit G. Appellants did not appeal the "second southerly access" requirement, and that condition may not be challenged at this time. See 24 V.S.A. §4472(a), (d). Therefore, this Court must conclude that, to date, Appellants' proposal does not have two access roads in compliance with the Regulations, despite the express condition in their 1984 approval that their Phase III proposal provide such dual access. II. Appellants Have Failed To Present Sufficient Evidence To Demonstrate Either Waiver or Discrimination. As to Appellants' arguments regarding waiver and unconstitutional discrimination, this Court should conclude that insufficient evidence exists to support either claim. The burdens and standards that Appellants must meet to demonstrate either implied waiver or selective enforcement/application are well established in law. Specifically, for each claim, the party asserting the waiver or discrimination bears the burden of proof. See Town of 2 "Access," in the context of the 1984 approval, must include the right of ingress and egress from the land in question. See Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed., 1990), at 13-14. 3 Brattleboro v. Travelers Ins. Co., 141 Vt. 402, 404 (1982)(waiver); In re Smith, Bell & Hauck Real _Estate, Inc., 132 Vt. 295, 302 (1974)(discrimination). The Appellants have undeniably failed to meet their respective burdens here. Given the facts of this case and the relevant standards, the Court cannot reasonably conclude that Appellants have produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate either waiver or discrimination to a legal certainty. That conclusion is supported further by Appellants' total failure to address the applicable legal standards in their memorandum or to apply the facts of this case to those standards. The reason for Appellants' failure is clear. The facts here simply do not evince either waiver, especially implied waiver, or discrimination. Accordingly, this Court should deny Appellants appeal on those issues. Conclusion For all of the reasons set forth above, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that this Court adopt its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in connection with this matter. SON436X.LIT �TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON BY: Stbt 1, Page & Fletcher, P.C. Jos,A h S . McLean 0 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVEN F. STITZEL[ (802) 660-2555 (VOICFJTDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 PATTI R. PAGE* OF COUNSEL ROBERT E. FLSTCHER E-MAII (FIItM2555 a�40L.COM) ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) April 28, 1997 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 N. Main St., 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -referenced matter is a stipulation of agreed facts between the City and the Dubois Drive Homeowners, the City's proposed conclusions of law, and a complete copy of the 1983 Subdivision Regulations (Exhibit 17), submitted at the Court's request. I will retain the City's exhibits until the time for responsive filings his passed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ve2elph truly yours, S. McLean JSM/dah enclosures cc: William A. Fead, Esq. J. Weith BON224.COR TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET lURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 IN RE APPEAL OF HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT Docket No. E96-166 STIPULATION NOW COME the parties, by and through their counsel of record, and hereby stipulate and agree to the admission of Exhibit No. 18, Appellants' Application for Subdivision Approval (Preliminary Plat), for consideration by the Court in connection with the merits hearing in the above - referenced matter. 1997. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 28th day of April, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys �` Z j G seph S. McLean 1997. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 28th day of April, LEDGE KNOLL HOMEOWNERS By: PAUL, FRANK & COLLINS, INC. Its Attorneys William A. Fead 1 DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this day of April, 1997. SON447.LIT SON447.LIT ;TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 HOMER DUBOIS and MARIE DUBOIS By: PERRY & SCHMUCKER Their Attorneys Robert J. Perry CITY OF SOUTH BURL, I NGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1) Name of Applicant Homer and Marie Dubois 2 ) Name of Subdivision Ledgeknoll Phase III 3) Submit Subdivision Fee 4) Describe Subdivision (�i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of land use, gross floor area for commercial or industrial uses): 40 residential lots on 33 acres, I2000 s.f. lots s-erved b m nici aI water and sewer lines. 5) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone numbers of owner of record, applicant, or contact person since sketch Plan application: none 6) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer Tyler Hart, P.E., Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 b. Surveyor Scott Taylor, Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 d. Plat Designer Tyler Hart, P.E. Same address as above 7) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since sketch plan application: Ho 'such changes a EXHIBIT m 8) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all contiguous,properties: iandgUners 3) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designer(s) of the preliminary maps) accompanying this application: Master plan SPI, Site plans SP2, SP3, Profiles P1. P2, Details D1,p2,D3,D4,D5 10) COST ESTIMATES for Planned Unit Developments, multi -family and commerci&I and industrial complexes: a) Buildings N/A b) Lands capingPercentage of coast cost per City Requirements c) All other site improvements (e.g., curb work Road And infrastrur-Inize ;Qt 4 neal footx3300 ft.- 660,000 11) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC for Planned Unit Developments, multi- family projects, and commercial and industrial complexes (2-way traffic, in plus out).. A.M. Peak hour 32 T.E. P.M. Peak hour 43 T.E. Average daily traffic 414 T.E. 1� • of trucks 12) Attach FIVE Copies and ONE reduced copy (11 x 17) of Preliminary map showing the following information: a) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the City.. b) -Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary plat. c) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 11 d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. e) The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdi- vided. f) Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts. paths, easements, parks and other public or privately main- tained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. g) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades where change of exist-e ins ground elevation will be five feet or more. h) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. i) Numerical and graphic scale, date and truce north arrow. j) Detaili of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. k) Details of proposed connection with the existing sani- tary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. ]) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed, location acid results of tests to ascertain subsurface soil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. rn1 Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. n) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culvert which may be required. a) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission. to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless on existing street intersection is. shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall, be shown. P) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 3 ( N 13) Development timetable (including -number of phases, and start and completion dates) • • Start fall 1996, Phases according to market co- anticipatiiing3 year buildout. 14) 2) List the waivers'applicant desires -from th these.regulations: retirements of ------------- 1) AlI existing subdivision* approximate tract lines an ' acreage of adjaeent-parcels'.-together with- the names of the records owners "of all. adjacent namely, those directl Parcels of .land;.: ... . street adjoinia y. *abutting 'or directly across ' ariy g.the proposed subdivision. bocatznns', * widths' -and names'. of existing, filed or ro- posed streets 'curb cuts , . ,easements , building lines and alleys -pertairiing'.,to :.the proposed subdivision and -to -the adjacent properties as'. designated in paragraph .l 'above. An.. Oi2t1"e of .the atted area together with • its street . system `' • anaii�d .'indication of system -of the"remainithe future probable ng Portion street Frelimin tion of the tract,• if the Y 'Plat "submitted. covers only -part. of the ;subaivider's ent#6 holding. �us'e) apP z cant 'or contact Person 4 t 4 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE APPEAL OF ) HOMER AND MARIE ) Docket No. E96-166 DUBOIS ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S AND LEDGE KNOLL HOMEOWNERS' STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and the Dubois Drive Homeowners, by and through their attorney, William A. Fead, Esq., and ask that this Court incorporate the following proposed findings of fact, stipulated and agreed to by those parties, into its Decision and Order in the above -referenced matter. Findings of Fact 1. This is an appeal by Homer and Marie Dubois (the "Appellants") from a September 10, 1996 decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission denying their application for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 32.89-acre parcel of land into forty (40) residential lots and a two parcels of open space off Dubois Drive in the City of South Burlington (the "City"). 2. Prior to its subdivision in 1984, the Appellants owned 85.98 acres of land, located easterly of Hinesburg Road, in the Southeast Quadrant zoning district. That property is bounded generally by lands of Summer Ice Joint 1 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 Ventures, Inc., to the north (formerly the property of Green Acres, Inc.), Green Acres, Inc., to the east, D. Wessel to the south and Hinesburg Road to the west. 3. Dubois Drive is a local subdivision street that extends easterly from Hinesburg Road, an arterial highway located in the City, and terminates in a cul-de-sac at its easterly end. Highland Terrace is an "L" shaped local subdivision street located southerly of and perpendicular to Dubois Drive, connecting Dubois Drive between lots 40 and 41 of the existing Ledge Knoll Subdivision with Hinesburg Road. Knoll Circle is an "U" shaped local subdivision street that terminates on Dubois Drive between lots 7 and 43 and between lots 57 and 25 of the existing Ledge Knoll subdivision. 4. Appellants' current proposal represents Phase III of an existing PRD known as "Ledge Knoll Subdivision," which is situated to the west of the undeveloped Phase III property. 5. On May 29, 1984, the South Burlington Planning Commission granted the Appellants' request for final plat approval for Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll Subdivision, consisting of fifty-seven (57) lots served by Dubois Drive, Highland Terrace, and Knoll Circle,' subject to certain express conditions and limitations. Said approval is 1 Condition 1 of the May 29, 1984 approval specifically set forth a phasing schedule authorizing the Appellants to undertake construction on 40 lots in 1984-85 (Phase I) and on 17 lots in 1985-86 (Phase II). 2 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREF,T BURLINGTON, VT 05402.1507 included in a packet of documents admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit G. 6. Specifically, the May 29, 1984 approval contained the following requirements: 7. That Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive after 50 units. 8. That Project II (condominiums)2 be submitted with a connector street to the Goodrich property and that a second southerly access be provided. See Exhibit G. 7. The terms and conditions of the May 29, 1984 Planning Commission approval were communicated to Appellants and their agents by letter of Jane S. Bechtel, South Burlington City Planner, dated June 1, 1984. See Exhibit G. The Appellants did not appeal the May 29, 1984 approval or otherwise object to any of the conditions set forth therein. Testimony of R. Trudell. 8. In accordance with the terms of the May 29, 1984 approval, the Appellants extended Highland Terrace to Dubois Drive following construction of the first fifty (50) residential units. As extended, Highland Terrace intersects with Dubois Drive between Lots 40 and 41 of the Ledge Knoll 2 At the time of the 1984 subdivision approval, Appellants sought conceptual approval for sixty-nine (69) condominium units on the property ("Project II," so-called). In 1985, the Appellants revised their intended use of the Phase III property from condominiums to single family residences. However, they did not file a subdivision application at that time. 3 3TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 Subdivision, approximately 350 feet easterly from the eastern edge of Hinesburg Road. 9. In 1993, Green Acres, Inc., applied to the City for approval to create a commercial/industrial subdivision on lands to the north of Appellants' property (n/f the "Goodrich property"). 10. At that time, Carl Cobb, Appellants' representative, met with Joseph Weith, the South Burlington City Planner, to discuss the Appellants' concerns regarding access through the Green Acres property. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. Mr. Weith recommended to Mr. Cobb that Appellants submit a letter to the Planning Commission expressing their concerns and attend and actively participate in the Planning Commission hearings relative to the Green Acres application. Testimony of J. Weith. 11. On or about June 91, 1993, Homer Dubois wrote a short letter to the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding access to the "land behind Ledge Knoll off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington" which he intended to subdivide "in the relatively near future." A copy of said letter has been admitted in this proceeding as Appellants' Exhibit 8. Neither Mr. Dubois nor any agent acting on his behalf attended or participated in the Planning Commission hearings on the Green Acres subdivision. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 4 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402 150, 12. On June 28, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Green Acres application for subdivision approval. The approved final plat did not include a roadway connection or other right-of-way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or the Phase III property. Testimony of J. Hart, R. Trudell and J. Weith. 13. Appellants did not appeal or otherwise object to the Green Acres subdivision approval. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 14. In 1994, Green Acres sought and obtained approval (on November 15, 1994) to revise the June 28, 1994 final subdivision plat. That revised final plat did not contained a roadway connection to the Appellants' existing Ledge Knoll development or the Phase III property. Testimony of J. Weith. 15. Appellants did not participate in the Planning Commission hearings regarding the revised subdivision plat, nor did they appeal or object to the revised approval. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 16. In 1996, Summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc., became the owner of those portions of the Green Acres property northerly of and adjoining the existing Ledge Knoll and proposed Phase III properties. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 17. In July 1996, Summer Ice sought and obtained subdivision approval for a revised plat closely resembling 5 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT' 05402-1507 the first Green Acres subdivision approval. That revised plat still did not provide a roadway connection to the Phase III property or the roadway system in Ledge Knoll. A copy of that revised plan has been admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 6. 18. Appellants did not participate in the hearings before the Planning Commission nor did they appeal the Summer Ice subdivision approval to this Court. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 19. No City official or body has ever indicated to Appellants or their representatives that approval of the Summer Ice Subdivision without a connection to Ledge Knoll relieved them of the requirement to provide an adequate second access to their property prior to submitting their Phase III proposal. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 20. By application, dated June 6, 1996, Appellants (through their engineer, James T. Hart) sought preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll subdivision. That application has been admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 18. 21. Item 14 of Appellants' application specifically indicates that they do not seek any waivers from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. See Exhibit 18. 22. Although the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Dubois Drive, constructed as part of Ledge Knoll Phase I and L STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Y.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 II project, could serve as a connection point to a possible right-of-way or street across lands to the south, Appellants' current proposal does not provide for any such right-of-way or connection street. 23. The proposed Phase III subdivision does not include an access point for a road to the south or a right of way across the common lands to access the Goodrich property to the north. Appellants' current proposal does not specifically provide a "second southerly access," as required by the May 29, 1984 Planning Commission approval. See Exhibit 3. 24. During the merits hearing, Appellants introduced no evidence demonstrating that they had attempted to obtain a right-of-way across lands to the south to provide a connection to either Van Sicklen Road or Hinesburg Road. 25. Section 401.1(g) of the current South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (the "Subdivision Regulations") provides in pertinent part that the number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Planning Commission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner. A copy of the current Subdivision Regulations has been admitted in this proceeding as City's Exhibit B. 26. The intent of §401.1(g) and similar provisions set forth in the zoning and subdivision by-laws and 7 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402 1507 Comprehensive Plan is to ensure emergency vehicle access and facilitate traffic circulation to the extent possible. J. Weith testimony. 27. Section 405 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the layout of a subdivision be reviewed by the Fire Chief to insure that the City can provide adequate fire protection. That review must include, among other things, an assessment of whether the proposed subdivision has "vehicular access from two directions where possible." See Exhibit B. 28. Section 401.1(a) of the Subdivision Regulations provides that [the arrangement of streets in [a] subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties which are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Commission, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. See Exhibit B. 29. Section 401.1(j)(2) and Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations require minimum right of way widths for public streets as follows: Arterial Streets - 80 feet; Collector Streets - 80 feet; Local Streets - 60 feet. Exhibit B. 8 30. Dubois Drive has a right of way width of 60 feet. Exhibit 3. 31. Section 103 of the Subdivision Regulations defines "Street, Local" as "[a] street intended to serve primarily as access to abutting properties, and which is not intended to be used by through traffic." In addition, §103 defines "Street, Collector" as "a street which serves or is designed to carry traffic from local streets to the system of major streets, and which may serve limited abutting non-residential uses or districts." Finally, §103 defines "Street, Arterial" as "a street which serves or is designed to be used primarily as a route for traffic between communities or major development areas." See Exhibit B. 32. The collector and arterial streets closest to Appellants' property are Van Sicklen Road to the south, Hinesburg Road to the west, the planned but not constructed Swift Street Extension to the north and Brownell Road in Williston to the east. See Exhibit D. 33. Section 401.1(k)(1)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve a private roadway when [the proposed roadway serves a multi -family residential development which is entirely on one lot (i.e. condominiums and/or apartment units) and the following criteria are met: . 2. The proposed roadway has two points of access on a public roadway and serves no more than twenty (20) units. STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. See Exhibit B . ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402 1507 G STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 34. The Planning Commission may allow the thresholds described in criterion 2, above, to be exceeded when it determines that increasing the number of units served by a private roadway will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the community. See Exhibit B, at §401.1(k) (1) (b) (3) . 35. Section 417 of the Subdivision Regulations requires the Planning Commission to "evaluate any proposed major subdivision according to [certain specified] standards." Among other criteria, the Planning Commission must determine that a proposed major subdivision: (f) will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities; (j) will provide efficient layout and high -quality installation, construction and maintenance of streets and public facilities and will conform with the City's street and utilities plans; and (k) will provide for cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways . . . . See Exhibit B. 36. The Appellants' subdivision plat (Exhibit 3) shows sole roadway access to proposed Phase III over a roadway consisting of two fifteen (15) foot wide paved areas separated by a raised four foot wide median strip approximately 500 feet in length connecting to the existing cul-de-sac at the easterly end of Dubois Drive. 37. Not including Lot 40 on the southeast corner of the intersection of Dubois Drive and Highland Terrace, 10 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 ] 71 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 fifty-one (51) of the existing fifty-seven (57) Ledge Knoll units are currently situated east of that intersection and Appellants' Phase III proposal will add an additional forty (40) units served by the single access section of Dubois Drive extending from existing lot 40 east to existing lot 36, and by the single access section from existing lot 31 east to existing lot 28. See Exhibit 3. 38. Section 405 of the 1963 Subdivision Regulations includes the following: "No dead-end streets shall be permitted except when topographic or physical conditions make it impossible at the time to extend it or connect it with another proposed or existing street." 39. Appellants contend that the Planning Commission has discriminatorily applied the "two access" requirement of section 401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations to their project. To support their claim, they point to four developments allegedly granted subdivision approval by the Planning Commission without two accesses: Stonehedge Condominiums (also known as Glenwood); Overlook -at -Spear Condominiums; Cedar Ridge development; and the Village at Dorset Park. 40. Stonehedge Condominiums is a complex of 129 condominium units with a single public road providing access to Spear Street, a collector or arterial street. 11 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 41. The Planning Commission initially approved subdivision of the Stonehedge (Glenwood) property in the early 1970's. 42. The City and the homeowners do not contest Appellants' assertion that the 1963 Subdivision Regulations, which governed the original Stonehedge application, included those excerpted provisions admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 9. 43. The provisions of Section 403 of the 1963 Subdivision Regulations include the following: D. Whenever any proposed subdivision shall adjoin another tract of acreage, streets that may logically be developed in the event of the future subdivision of such adjoining acreage shall be required to extend through to the boundary line of the adjoining acreage. E. Unless enclosed on two or more sides by serious natural obstacles, streets arranged in squares, ovals and circles, etc., must have at least two street connections at points substantially opposite to each other on the perimeter of such square, oval or circle. One of these street connections may extend to the undeveloped acreage. 44. Appellants offered no testimony in the hearings before the Court about the "topographic or physical conditions" surrounding Stonehedge Condominiums or about the presence or absence of "serious natural obstacles" in that neighborhood. 45. The conditions of final plat approval of Stonehedge on November 27, 1979, included requirement 7: 12 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT I.AW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 "Street access to any development to the south can be at any point along the southern boundary of this property." Exhibit 10. 46. As depicted in Exhibit 15, Stonehedge is separated from the ends of three City roads (Andrews Avenue, Oak Hill Drive, and Cranwell Avenue) by a City park, such that any extension of those roads to Stonehedge Drive would have required cutting through the park land. 47. Overlook -at -Spear is a 79 unit condominium complex with a single, privately owned access road that connects to Deerfield Road. Exhibit 14. 48. Deerfield Drive is shown as a collector street on the City's official map. Exhibit D. 49. As constructed, the access road is two lanes divided by a median strip approximately 600 feet long. 50. Appellants offered no evidence of the subdivision ordinance applicable in 1981, the time of subdivision approval for Overlook -at -Spear, other than the excerpts from the 1983 Subdivision Ordinance contained in Exhibit 17. 51. According to the minutes of the July 14, 1981 Planning Commission hearing on the Overlook -at -Spear subdivision, there was testimony that "there was a natural separation between the 2 developments [the proposed development and an existing development to the south and west] and a lot of fill would have to be put in to put a 13 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 connection in there. A lot of trees would be lost." Exhibit 12. 52. Appellants offered no testimony in this hearing before the Court about the "topographic or physical conditions" surrounding Overlook -at -Spear or about the presence or absence of "serious natural obstacles" in that neighborhood. 53. The Village at Dorset Park is a subdivision of sixty-three (63) single-family homes and 115 multi -family homes. 54. Brand Farm Road is a "U" shaped street which runs through the Village at Dorset Park Subdivision, providing two points of access to Swift Street Extension. 55. The Subdivision regulations relating to access to collector and arterial streets applicable to the Village at Dorset Park subdivision were in relevant part substantially the same as those applicable to the Appellants' proposed Phase III subdivision. 56. As currently constructed, Swift Street Extension extends from Dorset Street on the west to the easterly boundary of the Village at Dorset Park subdivision, and has only one outlet onto Dorset Street. When completed, Swift Street Extension will extend easterly to Hinesburg Road. 57. Swift Street Extension is shown on both the Official Map (Exhibit D) and in the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit C) as a collector street, connecting Dorset Street 14 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 and Hinesburg Road and extending across the Summer Ice project. 58. Cedar Ridge is a development containing 92 units in twenty-three (23) four-plexes on lands off Patchen Road. See Exhibit 13. 59. The Planning Commission granted Cedar Ridge subdivision approval in 1996. Testimony of Joe Weith. 60. The Subdivision regulations relating to access to collector and arterial streets applicable to the Cedar Ridge subdivision were identical to those applicable to the .Appellants' proposed Phase III subdivision. 61. Eighty (80) of the ninety-two (92) Cedar Ridge dwelling units are located on a privately owned loop road with access to public roads by a road approximately 130 feet long with two 20 foot lanes separated by an 8 foot wide median strip. Testimony of T. Hart and J. Weith, Exhibit 13. 62. This divided private road connects to two public roads, Juniper Drive, which extends directly to Patchen Road on the east, and Arbor Road, which connects to Patchen Road through the southerly and adjoining Summer Woods Condominium Development. See Exhibit 13, Testimony of T. Hart and J. Weith. 63. Numerous other subdivisions in the City have been required to provide two separate street accesses to collector or arterial streets, including Appellants' Butler 15 Farms subdivision, approved by the Planning Commission in 1985; Oak Creek subdivision, approved in 1986 or 1987, Foxcroft subdivision, approved in the mid 19801s; Nowland I subdivision, approved in the early 19801s; Pinnacle at Spear subdivision, approved in 1993; and the Economou Farms golf course/housing development, approved in 1996. Testimony of J. Weith. 64. Appellants did not adduce any evidence showing malice or bad faith on the part of the Planning Commission or any evidence of intentional discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, religion or other invidious criterion, or to prevent them from exercising a constitutional right. 65. Appellants failed to adduce any evidence showing that the Planning Commission has engaged in a pattern of discrimination consciously practiced. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this M41—day of April, 1997. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: S Zel, Page etcher, P.C. Jos h S. McLean DATED at Burlington, Vermont this a�ay of April, 1997. STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. SON43SX.LIT ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 DUBOIS DRIVE HOMEOWNERS z Willi :ad Lr,l William A. F ad 16 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON. VT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE APPEAL OF HOMER AND MARIE ) Docket No. E96-166 DUBOIS ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks that this Court adopt and incorporate the following conclusions of law into its Opinion and Order in the above -referenced matter. CONCLUSIONS I. Appellants' Project Does Not Have Two Access Roads in Compliance with the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. By their Statement of Questions, Appellants have asked this Court to determine whether their proposed Ledge Knoll Phase III subdivision has "two access roads in compliance with the City of South Burlington subdivision regulations." See Appellants' Statement of Questions. To make that determination, this Court must compare what is proposed with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. In so doing, this Court will construe the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations according to general rules of statutory construction, giving 1 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 the words of the bylaw their plain and ordinary meaning. Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, 162 Vt. 476, 479 (1994)(citing Blundon v. Town of Stamford, 154 Vt. 227, 229 (1990)). If the meaning is plain, this Court will enforce the bylaw according to its terms. Houston, 162 Vt. at 479; In re Vermont National Bank, 157 Vt. 306, 312 (1991). Section 401.1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations prohibits the Planning Commission from approving more than fifty dwelling units "served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street , , , unless additional connections to other streets are approved . . ." See Exhibit B, at §401.1(g)(emphasis added). The clear intent of that provision is to both mitigate any burden on municipal services, including emergency vehicle access, and to facilitate traffic circulation. See Zoning Regulations, §26.151 (municipal services); Comprehensive Plan, Chapter X, §§(E)(2)(a), (e) (circulation & emergency access); Chapter XIII, §(H) (fire protection); testimony of J. Weith. As indicated in their application for preliminary plat approval, the Appellants did not request that either the Planning Commission or this Court waive the requirements of §401.1(g) or any other provision of the Subdivision Regulations. See supra, Finding 21. It is undisputed and this Court concludes that Hinesburg Road is an arterial street and Dubois Drive, 2 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 Highland Terrace and Knoll Circle are local streets within the meaning of §103 of the Subdivision Regulations. See Exhibit G, at §103. As currently configured, only six (6) of the existing fifty-seven (57) dwelling units located off the above - referenced local streets (specifically, lots 1, 2, 3, 40, 41 and 42) have alternate access to Hinesburg Road. The remaining fifty-one (51) units located easterly of lot 40 off Dubois Drive are served by a system of streets sharing a common single access, extending from existing lot 36 to existing lot 40, to Hinesburg Road. Accordingly, the existing Ledge Knoll subdivision, as constructed, does not meet the literal access requirements of §401.1(g).1 Appellants now seek approval to construct an additional. forty (40) dwelling units east of lot 40, from which access to Hinesburg Road would necessarily be along that single access strip of Dubois Drive identified above. Since the system of streets east of lot 40 that includes Dubois Drive, Knoll Circle, and the proposed Phase III roadway will serve over fifty (50) dwelling units sharing a common single access to an arterial street, this Court cannot grant Appellants' request. Highland Terrace does not provide an 1 This Court notes that the Planning Commission's 1984 approval for Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll subdivision, while authorizing the extension of Highland Terrace to Dubois Drive following the construction of the initial fifty (50) units, clearly contemplated that additional access(es) would be provided by the Appellants as part of any Phase III proposal. 3 MTZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 adequate second access to Hinesburg Road so as to meet the requirements of §401.1(g). Appellants also argue that the proposed Phase III access depicted on Exhibit 3, consisting of two fifteen (15) foot wide paved areas separated by a 500 foot long raised median strip extending from the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac, constitutes an adequate alternative access for the purposes of §401.1(g). This Court concludes that that divided private roadway cannot satisfy the requirements of §401.1(g) since it does not provide additional connections to other arterial or collector streets and traffic served by the proposed roadway must still pass through that common single access strip, discussed above, to gain access to Hinesburg Road. In addition, it is clear that the existing cul-de-sac, which was constructed as part of Ledge Knoll Phases I and II, is not the second southerly access required by the Planning Commission in its 1984 approval. Therefore, this Court further concludes that Appellants' proposed development does not have two access roads in compliance with the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. II. The Planning Commission Did Not Waive the Requirement of Section 401 1(a) by Approving Development on Adjacent Land Without Requiring Access to Appellants' 4 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON. VT 05402-1507 Appellants argue that by approving the subdivision of the Summer Ice land adjacent to and northerly of Ledge Knoll without providing access through that property the Planning Commission effectively waived the second access requirement set forth in the Subdivision Regulations. The law of waiver is well established. To find a waiver of the second access requirement, this Court must conclude that the Planning Commission, by express words or conduct, intentionally relinquished or abandoned a known right. See Tooley v. Robinson, 163 Vt. 627, 628 (1995) (citing Chimney Hills Owners' Ass'n, Inc v Antianani, 136 Vt. 446, 453 (1978)); Toys, Inc v F M Burlington Co., 155 Vt. 44, 51-52 (1990). However, absent express language, waiver should not be implied lightly since it involves both knowledge and intent, and its essence is a voluntary choice. See deBeaumont v. Goodrich, 162 Vt. 91, 109 (Johnson, J., dissenting) (quoting Eastman v. Pellitier, 114 Vt. 419, 423 (1946)). Thus, before this Court may find a waiver, the Applicants must demonstrate that the Planning Commission acted with knowledge of all the material facts affecting its rights. Id• During the merits hearing, the Appellants presented no evidence demonstrating an express waiver of the so-called second access requirement. Accordingly, any waiver must be implied from the conduct of the Planning Commission. E MUEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 None of the plats submitted by those applicants and approved by the Planning Commission following duly warned public hearings included roadway connections or other rights of way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or the Phase III proposal. Despite their obvious interest in the development of the Green Acres/Summer Ice parcel, Appellants did not directly participate in any of the Planning Commission hearings on the above -referenced application, nor did they appeal the approvals granted. Further, although Appellants' representative met with the City Planner in 1993 to express concerns regarding access to the (then) Green Acres property, Appellants' failed to participate in the subdivision review process. Section 401.1(a) of the Subdivision Regulations, while encouraging the continuation of street connections between adjoining subdivisions, specifically provides that "[w]here, in the opinion of the Commission, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, such conditions may be modified." See Exhibit B, at 401.1(a) (emphasis added). In this case, where provision of roadway access to the (current) Summer Ice property would allow industrial traffic to travel over local subdivision streets through a residential Commission at the time that it approved Phases I and II of Ledge Knoll. 7 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 Oxford, 358 S.E. 2d 372, 375-76 (1987) (requiring a showing of "conscious and intentional discrimination"). Mere laxity in enforcement does not satisfy the elements of a claim of selective or discriminatory enforcement in violation of equal protection. Grace Baptist Church, 358 S.E. 2d at 376. To support their claim, Appellants have directed this Court to four development projects, approved by the City over a period spanning approximately twenty-five (25) years. With respect to each development they contend that the Planning Commission should have, but did not, require a second access. Such differential treatment, they allege, amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. The City has presented evidence largely distinguishing these projects which Appellants have characterized as inconsistent from their current Phase III proposal. Further, during the merits hearing, the City noted numerous additional projects, including other subdivision projects initiated by the Appellants, where it has required developers to provide a second access be provided. Without discussing all of the factors distinguishing the above -referenced projects, this Court concludes that Appellants have failed to bear their burden by demonstrating either an "invidious purpose" or conscious and intentional discrimination on the part of the City. Even assuming that all of the projects identified by Appellants were approved without the required alternate access, they have simply not 10 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 shown a "pattern of discrimination consciously practiced.i3 Therefore, this Court cannot conclude that the Planning Commission and/or any other City official unconstitutionally discriminated against them. order For all of the reasons set forth above, this Court hereby denies Appellants appeal of the September 10, 1996 decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission denying their application for preliminary plat approval. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 28th day of April, 1997. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: zel, Pag Fletcher, P.C. 7eph S. McLean SON441.LIT 3 Undeniably, over the course of twenty-five (25) years, Planning Commission members change and intensity of enforcement may correspondingly vary. As noted above, however, in the absence of some showing of conscious and intentional discrimination, mere laxity of enforcement is not a violation of equal protection. Compare Bianco v. Town of Darien, 254 A.2d 898 (1969) (that all houses on plaintiff's street violated one or more ordinances does not demonstrate nature of other violations or conscious discrimination). 11 STITZEL & PAGE, P. ATIMF NEYB AT LAW P.O. Box 1407 171 BA1,MIty 3T"ET B1J71L111GT0rN, VT 05402.10 STATE OF VE MONT $NVIRONMRNTA.L COURT i IN RE APPEAL OF } ) Docket No. L96-166 HOMER AND MARYE DUBOIS } } 77 I G O B .p C LUSI _ NL T,AW APl IJ 0 gs—NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, 5tit"1 , Page & Fletcher, P.C•, and asks that this Court adopt and incorporate the following conclusions of law into its opinion and Order in the above -referenced matter. MMMMKIR Rniationg• Questions, Appellants have asked BY their statement of this court to determine whether their proposed Ledge Knoll phase III subdivision has ,two access roads in compliance " with the City of south Burlington subdivision regulations' ag& Appellants' statement of Questions. To make that determination, this court must compare what is proposed with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Regulations- In so doing, this Court will construe the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations according to general rules of statutory construction, giving 1 sTITZEL & PAOE, P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. HOX 1507 irl gArM?tY 9TRtTT 8Uffi.IVGT0F' VT 05409.11 the words of the bylaw their plain and ordinary meaning. iicau�t�- TaWrira_jts- - , 162 Vt. 476, 479 (1994) ( i i un c v 'Town o� s aA1�4�d, 154 Vt. 227, 229 (1990)). If the meaning is plain,, this Court will enforce the bylaw according to its terms. HQu t n, 162 vt. at 479; reyermoaal- Darc, 157 Vt. 306, 312 (? 991) Section 401.1(9) of the South Burlington subdivision Regulations prohibits the planning Commission from approving more than fifty dwelling units "served by a cul-de-sac or by )'1 t1, La cam- sty . unless additional connections to other streets are approved . . e Exhibit H, at S401.1(g)(empha6is added). The clear intent of that provision is to both mitigate any burden on municipal services, including emergency vehicle access, and to Facilitate traffic; a� Zoning Regulations, ; Comprehensive Plan, Chapter X, g26.151 (municipal services) SS(E) (z) (a) , (e) ( circulation & emergency access); chapter XIII, ire S(H ) ( protection); testimony of J. Weith. f As indicated in their application for preliminary plat approval, the Appellants did not request that either the Court waive the requirements of planning Commission or this S401.1(9) or any other provision of the subdivision Regulations. g9j AW r , Finding 21• It is undisputed and this Court concludes that Hinesburg Road is an arterial street and Dubois Drive, N STITZEL & PAGE. P.0 AMFLNEYS AT LAW P.O. e0X 1507 171 SArMlty 9TRLLT BURLINGTON. VT O6402.1501 Highland Terrace and Knoll Circle are local streets within the meaning of S103 of the Subdivision Regulations. Exhibit G, at 5103. As currently configured, only six (6) of the existing fifty-seven (57) dwelling units located off the above -- referenced local streets (specifically, lots 1, 2, 3, 40, 41 and 42) have alternate access to Hinesburg Road. The remaining fifty-one (51) units located easterly of lot 40 off Dubois Drive are served by a ,system of streets sharing a common single access, extending from existing lot 36 to existing lot 40, to Hinesburg Road. Accordingly, the existing Ledge Knoll subdivision, as constructed, does not meet the liteLal access requirements of 5401..1(9)•1 Appellants now seek approval to construct an additional forty (40) dwelling units east of lot 40, from which access to Hinesburg Road would necessarily be along that single access strip of Dubois Drive identified above. Since the sy5t8M of streets east of lot 40 that includes Dubois Drive, Knoll Circle, and the proposed Phase III roadway will serve over fifty (50) dwelling units: sharing a common single access to an arterial street, this Court cannot grant Appellants, request. H 1gn.Lana This Court notes that the Planning Commission's 1984 approval for Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll subdivision, while authorizing the extension of Highland Terrace to Dubois Drive following the construction of the initial fifty (50) units, clearly b ctheeAp1e11an�sa�aapar�icfaanycPhaseeIIT would be provided? y PP proposal. 3 t? 1l7ZZ ,_ LC Z^ tNOrt) L5 . 8? ,3Y i STiTZFL &. PAGE, P.( ArrORNEYS AT LAW P O. BO% 1607 I 171 BA1' RY !STREET 4 0U1tL1NWMN-VT06<o2-1W adequate second access to Hinesburg Road so as to meet the requirements of §401. 1(g) - Appellants also argue that the proposed Phase IIY access depicted on Exhibit 3, consisting of two fifteen (15) foot wide paved areas separated by a 500 foot long raised median strip extending from the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac, constitutes an adequate alternative access for the purposes of §401.1(9) . This Court concludes that that divided(,frivatiroadway cannot satisfy the requirements of 5401.1(g) since it does not provide additional connections to other arterial or collector streets and traffic served by the proposed roadway must still pass through that common single access strip, discussed above, to gain access to Hinesburg Road. In addition, it is clear that the existing cul-de-sac, which was constructed as part of Ledge Knoll Phases I and II, is not the second sautherly access required by the Planning Commission in its 1984 approval. Therefore, this Court further concludes that Appellants' proposed development does not have two access roads in compliance with the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. ZI �a,e vl Rnn� nc� C et Waiy$_ a 4 �:?H 3t�y Y72Z.:.i....- Ln -0 (NON) L6 . 9� H.ib S'CITZEL & PAOE, P.i A I'ORNtYS AT LAW P.O. e0X 1407 171 BATTERY STREET 9CRU 4GTONNT 06.07-1GC Appeylants arTis that by approving the subdivision of the Summer Ice land adjacent to and northerly of Ledge Knoll without providing access through that property the Planning Commission effectively waived the second access requirement set forth in the Subdivision Regulations. The law of waiver is well established. To find a waiver of the second access requirement, this Court must conclude that the Planning Commission, by express words or conduct, intentionally relinquished or abandoned a known V 844.�, 163 Vt. 627, 628 (1995) right. ;AS TnniQ�� 136 (fig �.r,�-rnav1�.� 1$5 Vt. 446, 453 (1978)); Vt. 44, 51-52 (1990). However, absent express language, waiver should not be implied lightly since it involves both knowledge and intent, and its essence is a voluntary choice. 162 Vt. 91, log (Johnson, J., 3R8 -__-_� ., r�All;tigr, 114 Vt. 419, 423 dissenting) (�� B - - (1946)). Thug, before this Court may find a waiver, the Applicants must demonstrate that the Planning Commission acted with knowledge of all the material facts affecting its rights. zd.& its hearing, the Appellants= presented no During the m®r evidence demonstrating an express waiver of the so-called second access requirement. Accordingly, any waiver must be implied from the conduct of the Planning Commission. M1 5 "datf Z 7. - 90 fN0;�I) L6 . :?? }i 5TiTZEL & PAGE, PA AT70RtiFY9 AT LAW P.O. sox I 171 6ATTEAY STBWIT 8U11LJvGWN, VT OW2 lit In 1984, at the time that the Planning Commission approved Phases I and II of the Ledge Knoll subdivision, it clearly had a right, pursuant to SS401.1(9)► 401.1(k)(1)(b), 405 and 417 of the subdivision Regulations, to require adequate alternate access both to the project and to subsequent phases or devel.opment. 1= Exhibit S, at provisions referenced. The Commission exercised that right when it conditioned Appellants' May 29, 1984 approval to require that "Project II . . . be submitted with a connector street to the Goodrich property and that a second southerly access be provided." SgA Exhibit G. That condition was communicated to Appellants and they did not object to it nor appeal from it. Notwithstanding the requirements of their prior approval, the Phase III proposal fails to provide the required access(es) and Appellants presented no evidence demonstrating that they attempted to obtain access over lands to the south and could not do so. The evidence indicates that on three occasions, in 1993, 1994 and 1996, respectively, either Green Acres, Inc., Ventures, Inc., the owners of the or Summer Ice Joint property to the north of the existing Ledge Knell subdivision, asked the Planning Commission, to approve a commercial/industrial subdivision on that northerly parcel.2 2 Although, the Green Acres/Summer Ice property was zoned for commercial/industrial use in 1984, no specific proposal for that property was before the Planning 6 STITZEL & PAUF. FI { A'I U'NEY6 AT LAW P 0- e0X 1601 INUALMOTON, vT 08102"&( itted by those applicants and approved None of the plate aubm by the Planning Ccmmission following duly warned public hearings included roadway connections or other rights of way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or the Phase III proposal. viout� interest in the development of Despite their ob the Green Acree/9ummer ice parcel, Appellants did not directly participate in any of the planning commission hearings on the above -referenced application, nor did they appeal the approvals granted. Further, although Appellants' representative met with the City planner in 1993 to express concerns regarding access to the (then) Green Acres property, Appellants' failed to participate in the subdivision review process. Section 401.1(a) of the Subdivision Regulations, while encouraging the continuation of street connections between adjoining subdi-risions, specifically provides that °[w]here, in the opinion of the Commission, topographic =-?-Z ZQnditig= make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, such conditions may be modified." SAR Exhibit B, at 401.1(a) (emphasis added). In this case, where provision of roadway access to the (currant) Summer Ice property would allow industrial traffic to travel over local Subdivision streets through a residential I time that it approved phases I and It of Commission at the Ledge Knoll. 7 ;''b 1V-i'l7 7 50 7^ (N0➢4) L6 . 9L 1 c STITZEL & PAGE, P.{ ArroFtNEYS AT LAW jP.Q. sax uo1 171 EAMRY STREET BunisOTOK. yr 06402,160 neighborhood, creating undesirable and impracticable conditions, the planning Commission acted reasonably in deciding not to r8l wire roadway connections between the two properties. Further, as often noted in cases involving a claim of estoppel, this Court will not predicate an implied waiver in favor of one whose own inadvertence or omissions contribute to a problem. 139 Vt. 288, 294 (1981), Appellants' failure to protect their rights and interests by participating in the planning commission proceeding$ on the Green Acres/Summer Ice proposals contzibuLed greatly to their current problem. Therefore, a finding of an implied waiver is not justified in this case and this Court cannot conclude that the planning Commission .by its conduct or otherwise, knowingly and intentionally waived the alternate access requirement set forth in the Su bdivision Regulations and incorporated into the 1984 approval by deciding not to require a roadway connection to the Green Acres/summer ICe property. iYn 1 � lil,1,X III. Appellants further argue thet the Planning Commission unconstitutionally discriminated against them, by denying their application for Preliminary plat approval for lack of a second access, while not applying that requirement to other similarly situated projects. 8 STITZEL & FACE, PA A7MRNM AT LAW j P 0. WX 1507 t 171 BATTERY WM9ZT BURLINGTON. VT 04402-140 During the merits Baring the City moved for partial judgment in its iavoi on that issue pursuant to V.R.C.P. 52(c). This Court indicated at that time that it would reserve its ruling until it could review all of the relevant evidence. Having conducted that review, the Cxty's motion is now granted. There is no gueation in this case that the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Regulations are valid on their face. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that an ordinance, while valid on its Pace, may deny equal protection if it is enforced and/or applied in a 118 TJ.B. discriminatory manner. � 356, 373-74 (1886). The party who alleges discriminatory enforcement and/or application of an ordinance must bear the burden of demonstrating that is has been administered "with an evil eye and an unequal hand." M••"===�� 460 S.E.2d 899, 913 (1995) ("a plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant was motivated by 'an invidious purpose' in selectively enforcing the particular law") . To meet this burden, a party seeking to prove that a municipality's enforcement and/or application of a facially valid ordinance amounts to a denial of equal protection must show "a pattern of discrimination consciously practiced." a goal 132 Vt. Sao ty--Qf 295, 302 (1974); 0 d, 358 S.L. 2d 372, 375-76 (1987) (requiring a showing Mere laxity of "conscious and intentional discrimination'") in enforcement does not satisfy the elements of a claim of selective or discriminatory enforcement in violation of St , 358 S.F- 2d at 376. equal Protection - To support their claim, Appellants have directed this Court to four development projects, approved by the City over a period spanning approximately twenty-five (25) years. With respect to each development they contend that the Planning Commission should have, but dial not, require a second access. Such differential treatment, they allege, amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. The city has presented evidence largely distinguishing these projects -which Appellants have characterized as inconsistent from their current Phase III PrOPOsal. Further, during the merits hearing, the City noted numerous additional projects, including other subdivision projects initiated by the Appellants, where it has required developers to provide a second access be provided. Without dA.scuasI g all of the factors distinguishing the above -referenced projects, this Court concludes that Appellants have failed o hear their burden by demonstrating either an "invidious pureose or conscious and intentional of the City. Even assuming that discrimination on the part all of the projects identified by Appellants were approved without the raqui'"ed alternate access, they have simply not STiTZEL & PAGE. F-C I A7MRNEYS pT LAW I1 f P.O. HVX IN, 171 SAITERY STROT PURL1NOTON, VT 06409-101 : 1 3:De 10 i STITZEL & PAGE, P. 1 ArMRNSYS AT LAW j P.O. Box ISO' {1 1T, BATTERY ®TRaCT 80RLINOTON. VT 011402-13 shown a "pattern of discs=�mination consciously practiced.i3 Therefore, this . JI.:ft cannot conclude that the Planning commission and/or any other- City official unconstitutionally discriminated against them• For all of the reasons set forth above, this Court nts appeal of the September 10, 1996 hereby denies Appeilslton Planning Commission denying decision of the South Buring their application for preliminary plat approval. DATLD at Burlington, Vermont, this 28th day of April, 1997. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON P.C. pzel, Pag Fletcher, Jo pLean 90N441.LIT f th4 course of twenty-five (25) 1 3 tin deniabl ; o%rer e and Antensi.ty of years, Pjannang Com.ision members change noted above, enforcement qaz' cyrrespondingly vary. of conscious andhowever, in the absence of some showing of enforcement is intentional discrimination, mere laxity Town not a violation of equal proteCticr.. o ho es on Bianco v• of Darien, 254 A-2d 898 (1969) (that all rdinaa es plaintiff's street violated one ormoreozrco�sciousdoes not Jdemonstrate nature y- otherviolations i discri-mi-nation) . 11 � : 3:7H, t-"V x"'-.=Z_ .._ r ?'. '\Oi�) L6 . P? _V STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT ) IN RE APPEAL OF ) HOMER AND MARIE ) DUBOIS ) Docket No. B96-166 NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzei, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and the Dubois Drive Homeowners, by and through their attorney, William A. Fead, Esq., and ask that this Court incorporate the following proposed findings of fact, stipulated and agreed to by those parties, into its Decision and order in the above -referenced matter. Findings of Fact 1. This is an appeal by Homer and Marie Dubois (the "Appellants") from a 6eptember 10, 1996 decision of the South Burlington Planning commission denying their _�k application for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 32.89-acre parcel of land into forty (40) residential lots and a two parcels of open space off Dubois Drive in the City of south Burlington (the "City") ....�-�`� 2. The Appellants own 85.98 acres of land, located easterly of Hinesburg Road, in the Southeast Quadrant zoning district. Thsir property is bounded generally by lands of summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc., to the north (formerly the 1 _,_)P--. ;! 5^ c;x.4, )'6. -T 14 d property of Green Acres, Tric.), Green Acres, Inc., to the east, D. Wes'sel to the south and Hinesburg Road to the West. 3. Dubois Drive is a local subdivision street that extends easterly arom Hinesburg Road, an arterial highway located in the C.Ity, and terminates in a oul-de-sac at its easterly end. Highland Terrace is an "L" shaped local subdivision street located southerly of and perpendicular to Dubois Drive, connecting Dubois Drive between lots 40 and 41 of the existing Ledge Knoll Subdivision with Hinesburg Road. Knoll Circle is an "L" shaped local subdivision street that terminates on Dubois Drive: between lots 7 and 43 and 57 and 25 of the existing Ledge Knoll subdivision. 4. Appellants' proposal represents Phase III of an existing PRD known ds "Ledge Knoll Subdivision," which is situated to the west of the undeveloped Phase III property. 5. on May 29, 1984, the South Burlington Planning commission granted the Appellants' request for final plat I and II of the Ledge Knoll subdivision, approval for Phases consisting of fifty-�seven (57) lots,' subject to certain express conditions and limitationso said approval is included in a packet of documents admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit G. Condition 1 of the May 29, 1984 approval specifically set forth a phasing schedule au��$rini g the Appellants to undertake Construction on 40 {Phase Y) and on 17 lots in 19s5-86 {Phase il)• 2 6. specifically, the May 29, 1984 approval contained the following requirements: 7. That Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive after 50 units. 8. That Project II (condominiums)' be submitted with a connector street 'to the Goodrich property and that a second southerly access be provided. See Exhibit G. 7. The terms and conditions of the May 29, 1984 Planning ^ommiasion approval were communicated to Appellants and their agents by letter of Jane S. Bechtel, South Burlington City Planner, dated June 1, 1984. && Exhibit G. The Appellants did not appeal the May 29, 1984 approval or otherwise object to any of the conditions set forth therein. Testimony of R. Trudell. 8. In accordance with the terms of the May 29, 1984 approval, the Appellants extended Highland Terrace to Dubois Drive following construction of the first fifty (50) residential units. As extended, Highland Terrace intersects with Dubois Drive between Lots 40 and 41 of the Ledge Knoll Subdivision, approximately 350 feet easterly from the eastern edge of Hinesburg Road. 2 At the time of the 1984 subdivision approval, Appellants sought conceptual approval for sixty-nine (69) condominium units on the property ("Project II," so-called). In 1985, the Appellants revised their intended use of the Phase III property from condominiums to single family residences. However, they did not file a subdivision application at that time. 3 30b?b.-3zW:W 6I bn ;I�3) L6 �r �3b 9. In 1993, Green Acres, Inc., applied to the City for approval to create a commercial/industrial subdivision on lands to the north of Appellants' property (n/f the "Goodrich property"). 10. At that time, Carl Cobb, Appellants' representative, Dist with Joseph Weith, the South Burlington City Planner, to discuss the Appellants' concerns regarding access through the Green Acres property. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. Mr. Weith recommended to Mr. Cobb that Appellants submit a letter to the Planning Commission expressing their concerns and attend and actively participate in the Planning Commission hearings relative to the Green Acres application. Testimony of J. Weith. 11. On or about June 9, 1993, Homer Dubois wrote a short letter to the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding access to the "land behind Ledge Knoll off Hinesburg Road in South Burlington" which he intended to subdivide "in the relatively near future." A copy of said letter has been admitted in this proceeding as Appellants' Exhibit 8. Neither Mr. Dubois nor any agent acting on his behalf attended or participated in the Planning Commission hearings on the Green Acres subdivision. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 12. On June 28, 1994, the Planning commission approved Green Acres application for subdivision approval. The approved final plat did not include a roadway connection or 9 other right -of --way to the existing Ledge Knoll roadway system or the Phase III property. Testimony of J. Hart, R. Trudell and J. Weith. 13. Appellants did not appeal or otherwise object to the Green Acres subdivision approval. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 14. In 1994, Green Acres sought and obtained approval (on November 15, 1994) to revise the June 28, 1994 final subdivision plat. That revised final plat did not contained a roadway connection to the Appellants' existing Ledge Knoll development or the Phase III property. Testimony of J. Weith. 15. Appellants did not participate in the Planning Commission hearings regarding the revised subdivision plat, nor did they appeal or object to the revised approval. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 16. In 1996, Summer Ice Joint ventures, Inc., became the owner of .hose portions of the Green Acres property northerly of and adjoining the existing Ledge Knoll and proposed Phase III properties. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 17. In July 1996, Summer Ice sought and obtained subdivision approval for a revised plat closely resembling the first Green Acres subdivision approval. That revised plat still did not provide a roadway connection to the Phase III property or the roadway system in Ledge Knoll. A copy 5 - ^,Y1 ^7 "1^ ( I"i37 L6 . 5z 16idY of that revised plan :ias been admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 6. 18. Appellants did not participate in the hearings before the Planning Commission nor did they appeal the Summer Ice subdivision approval to this Court. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. i9. No City official or body has ever indicated to Appellants or t.,eir representatives that approval of the Summer Ice Subdivision without a connection to Ledge Knoll relieved them of the requirement to provide an adequate second access to their property prior to submitting their Phase III proposal. Testimony of R. Trudell and J. Weith. 20. By application, dated June 6, 1996, Appellants (through their engineer, James T. Hart) sought preliminary plat approval from the planning Commission for Phase III of the Ledge Knoll subdivision. That application has been admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit . 21. Item 14 of Appellants' application specifically indicates that they do not seek any waivers from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. W& Exhibit 22. Although the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Dubois Drive could serve as a connection point to a possible right-of-way or street across lands to the south, Appellants' current proposal does not provide for any such right-of-way or connection street. 9 23. in the absence of a right-of-way or street connection Dubois Drive to an arterial or collector street, in addition to w1ahIgnd Terrace Appellants' current 1 1 , proposal does nct specifically provide a "second southerly access," as regL .red by the May 29, 1984 Planning Commission approval. See Exhibit 3. 24. During the merits hearing, Appellants introduced no evidence demonstrating that they had attempted to obtain a right-of-way across lands to the south to provide a connection to either Van Sicklen Road or Hinesburg Road. 25. Section 401.1(g) of the current South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (the "Subdivision Regulations") provides in pertinent part that [t]he number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional. connections to other streets are approved by the Planning commission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner. A copy of the current Subdivision Regulations has been admitted in this proceeding as City's Exhibit B. 26. The intent of $401.1(g) and similar provisions set forth in the zoning and subdivision by-laws and Comprehensive Plan is to ensure emergency veajicle access and facilitate traffic circulation to the extent passible. J. Weith testimony. 27. Section 405 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the layout of a subdivision be reviewed by the 7 Fire Chief to insure that the City can provide adequate fire protection. That., review must include, among other things, an assessment of whether the proposed subdivision has 'vehicular aces: from 4wo directions where possible." Exhibit B. 28. Section 401.1(a) of the Subdivision Regulations provides that [t]he arrangement of streets in [a] subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties which are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and constructi,:)n or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Commission, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. fig& Exhibit B. 29. Section 401.1j)(2) and Table IV-1 of the Subdivision Regulations require minimum right of way widths for public street, as follows: Arterial Streets - 80 feet; Collector Streets -- 80 feet; Local Streets - 60 feet. Exhibit B. 30. Dubois Drive has a right of way width of 60 feet. Exhibit 3. 31. Section 103 of the Subdivision Regulations defines "Street, Local" as "[a] street intended to serve primarily as access to ablattirg properties, and which is not intended 8 to be used by throiagh traffic." In addition, §103 defines "Street, Collector" as "a street which serves or is designed to carry traffic from local streets to the system of major streets, and which may serve limited abutting non-residential uses or districts." Finally, S103 defines "Street, Arterial" as "a street which serves or is designed to be used primarily as a route for traffic between communities or major development areas." g_@A Exhibit B. 32. The collector and arterial streets closest to Appellants' property are Van Sicklen Road to the south, Hinesburg Road to the west, the planned but not constructed Swift Street Extension to the north and Brownell Road in Williston to the east. agg Exhibit D. 33. Section 441.1(k)(1)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve a private roadway when (t]he proposed roadway serves a multi -family residential development which is entirely on one lot (i.e. condominiums and/or apartment units) and the following criteria are met: . 2. The proposed roadway has two points of access on a public roadway and serves no more than twenty ( 2 0 ) units. Exhibit B. 34. The Planning Commission may allow the thresholds described in criterion 2, above, to be exceeded when it determines that increasing the number of units served by a private roadway will. not have an adverse effect on the E public good any: welfare of the community. See Exhibit B, at $401.1(k) (1) (b) (3) . 35. Section 417 of the subdivision Regulations requires the Planning i7crnission to "evaluate any proposed major subdivision aczordir_g to [certain specified] standards." _kmon.g otIlar criteria, the Planning Commission must determine that a proposed major subdivision: (f) will not ca,,lse an unreasonable burden: on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities; (j) will provide efficient 'Layout and Nigh -quality installation, construction and maintenance of streets and public facilities and will conform with the City's street and utilities plans; and (k) will provide for cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways . 5�" Exhibit B. 35. The Appellants' subdivision plat (Exhibit 3) shows sole roadway access to proposed Phase III over a roadway consisting of two fifteen (15) foot wide paved areas separated by a raised four foot wide median strip approximately 500 feet in length connecti-ng to the existing cul-de-sac at the easterly end of Dubois Drive. 37. Not including Lot 40 on the southeast corner of the intersection of Dubois Drive and Highland "L'errace, fifty-one (51) of the existing fifty-seven (57) Ledge Knoll units are currently situated east of that intersection and Appellants' Phase II1 proposal will add an additional forty (40) units served by the single access section of Dubois 10 Drive extending from existing lot 40 east to existing lot 36, and by the single access section from existing lot 31 east to existing lot 28. ,eg Exhibit 3. 38. The provisions of Section 403 of the 1963 Subdivision Regulations include the following: D. Whenever any p oposed subdivision shall adjoin another tiact of acreage, streets that may logically be developed in the event of the future subdivision of such adjoining acreage shall be required to extend through to the boundary line of the adjoining acreage. E. Unless enclosed on two or more sides by serious natural obstacles, streets arranged in squares, ovals and circles, etc., must have at least two street connections at points substantially opposite to each other on the perimeter of such square, oval or circle. One of these street connections may extend to the undeveloped acreage. 39. Section 403 of the 1963 Subdivision Regulations includes the fallowing: "No dead-end streets shall be permitted except when topographic or physical conditions make it impossible at the time to extend it or connect it with another proposed or existing street." Appellants offered no testimony about the "topographic or physical conditions" surrounding Stonehedge condominiums or about the presence or absence of "serious natural obstacles" in that neighborhood. The conditions of final plat approval of Stonehedge on November 27, 1979, included requirement 7: "Street access to 11 a^H; 3.:�H�h3'=Z.L ?� t60 ("Iid) L6 . 5L EiV any development to the Eonith can be at any point along the southern bounda-y of this property." Exhibit 10. 40. Appejlar,::s ;.ols. pnd that the Planning Commission has discrininw-,:,rily applied the "two access" requirement of section 401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations to their project. To suppurt their claim, they point to four developments ail et;ed ly granted subdivision approval by the Planning Commission without two accesses: Stonehedge Condominiums (also known as Glenwood); Overlook -at -Spear Condominiums; cedar R dSe development; and the village at Dorset Park. 41. Stonehedge Condominiums is a complex of 129 condominium units with a single public road providing access to Spear Street, a collector or arterial street. 42. The Planning Commission initially approved subdivision of the Stonehedge (Glenwood) property in the early 19701s. 43. The City and the homeowners do not contest Appellants' assertion: that the 1953 Subdivision Regulations, which governed the original Stonehedge application, included those excerpted provisions admitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 9. 44. As depicted in Exhibit 15, Stonehedge is separated from the ends of three City roads (Andrews Avenue, Oak Hill Drive, and Cranwell Avenue) by a City park, such that any 12 extension of those roads to Stonehedge Drive would have required cutting thraLIgh the park land. 45. Overioo,1-:-a"- -Spear is a 79 unit cond4minium complex with a single, privat.sly owned access road that connects to Deerfield Road. Exhibit 14. 46. Deexfit-,ld ?eau is shown as a collector street on the City's official raap. Exhibit D. 47. As cc nstruc"red, the access road is two lanes divided by a ve!3ian s rm :gyp approximately 6O0 feet long. 48. Appellants offered no evidence of the subdivision ordinance applicable in 1981, the time of subdivision approval for Overlook -at -Spear, other than the Excerpts from the 1963 Sub6lvislon Ordinance contained in Exhibit 9, portions of which are g»oted in Finding above. 49. According to the minutes of the July 14, 1981 Planning Commission hearing on the Overlook -at -Spear subdivision, there was testimony that "there was a natural separation between the 2 developments [the proposed development and an existing development to the south and west] and a lot of fill would have to be put in to put a connection in there. A lot of trees would be lost." Exhibit 12. 50. Appellants offered no testimony about the "topographic or physical conditions" surrounding overlook - at -spear or about the presence or absence of "serious natural obstacles" in that neighborhood. 13 51. Bi and Farm -road is a 11TJ" shaped street which runs through, the Village at Dorset Park Subdivision, providing two points of accees to swift Street Extension. 52. Ths Subdivision regulations relating to access to collector and arterial etreets applicable to the Village at Dorset Park subdiviel.un were in relevant part substantially the sane as thosa apryliba:ble to the Appellants' proposed Phase III subdivision. 53. As �izrrenitly constructed, Swift Street Extension extends from Dorset, Street on the west to the easterly boundary of the Village at Dorset Park subdivision, and has only one outlet onto Dorset Street. 54. Swift Street Extension is shown on both the Official Map (Exhibit D) and in the Comprehene.ve Plan (Exhibit C) au a collector street, connecting Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. 55. Cedar Ridgo is a development containing 92 units in twenty-three (23) four-plexes on lands off Patchen Road. &gg Exhibit 13. 56. The Planning Commission granted Cedar Ridge subdivision approval in 1996. Testimony of Jae wei.th. 57. The Subdivision regulations relating to access to collector and arterial streets applicable to the Cedar Ridge subdivision were identical to those applicable to the Appellants' proposed Phase III subdivision. 14 58. The Cedar ridge dwelling units are located on a privately owner 3.o, oad with access to public. roads by a road approximat4ly feet long with two 20 foot lanes separated by an 8 fcot wide median strip. Testimony of T. Hart and U. Weith, Exhibit 13. 59. Thi- divided p ivate road connects to two public roads, Juniper Dr_v6, which extends directly to Patchen Road on the east, and A_bof Road, which connects to Patchen Road through t,ie southerly and adjoining summer woods Condominium Development. Zjig Ex": ibit 13, Testimony of 'J . Hart., ---' 60. Numerous ctht�r subdivisions in the City have been required to provide two separate street accesses to collector or arterial streets, including Appellants, Butler Farms subdivision, approved by the Planning Commission in 1985; Oak Creek subdivision, approved in 1986 or 1987, Foxcroft subdivision, approved in the mid 19801s; Nowland I subdivision., approved In- the early 1980'9 11 4)nd Pinnacle at ` spear subdivision, approved in 13,8'3;� Testimony of J. Weith. 61. Appellants did not adduce any evidence showing bad faith on the part of the Planning Comp► ssion or any evidence of intentiona'. discrimination on the b1sis of race, creed, color, religion or other invidious cri*.erion. 62. Appellants failed to adduce �ny evidence showing that the Planning Ooirsaission has engaged in a pattern of discrimination consciously practiced. 15y rsc S , 3r%d.3 1997. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this day of April, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. Joseph S. McLean 1997. DATED at Burlingto3l, Vermont this day of April, SON435X.LIT DUBOIS DRIVE HOMEOWNERS By: William A. Fead Wham A. Fead 16 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVENF. ST]TZEL (802) 660-2555 (VOICEfMD) PATTI R. PAGE* FAX (802) 660-2552 ROBERT E. FLETCHER E MA IL(FIRM2555(a3AOL.COM) JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 N. Main St., 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -referenced matter is City of South Burlington's Proposed Exhibit List. It is my understanding that those parties attending the informal "pre -hearing conference" conducted today (i.e., the Applicants by Robert Perry, Esq. and the neighbors by William Fead, Esq.) have agreed to the admission of the documents listed on the enclosed Exhibit List. Thank you. JSM/gmt Enclosure cc: William Alexander Robert S. Perry, William O. Fisk )Vver truly yours, h S. McLean Fead, Esq. Esq. Joe Weith, City Planner SON3242.COR STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE APPEAL OF ) Environmental Court HOMER AND MARIE ) Docket No. E96-166 DUBOIS ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and submits the following proposed exhibit list in connection with the above -referenced matter. The City reserves the right to alter or amend this list as necessary. 1. City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations (1994); 2. City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations (1995); 3. City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan (1996) 4. City of South Burlington Tax Map of Dubois property and surrounding parcels; 4. City of South Burlington Official Map (1992); 5. City of South Burlington Wetlands Map 6. D. Wessel sketch plan as submitted to City 1997. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 11th day of April, SON429.LIT riTZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 771 BATTERY STREET URLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its�A'orneys jDh S. McLean 1 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVENF. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* ROBERT E. FLETCHER JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) Robert J. Perry, Esq. Perry & Schmucker P.O. Box 2323 So. Burlington, VT 05407 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 E-MAIL(FIRM2555@A0L. COM) VIA HAND DELIVERY April 11, 1997 Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Bob: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA I am writing to follow-up on several outstanding issues from our "pre -hearing conference" this morning. I have enclosed the copies of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations from 1976 and 1995, as you requested. Unfortunately, Ray Belair could not locate a copy of the 1963 Subdivision Regulations. If you have any information regarding where that document is located, please let us know. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposed exhibit list. As you can see, the City intends to introduce information regarding the Wessel property and wetlands to demonstrate the possibility of Mr. Dubois establishing a second access over lands to the south of his parcel. The City also intends to introduce the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, in addition to the Subdivision Regulations, and reserves the right to seek the introduction of those documents in their entirety. Please let me know if you have any questions. JSM/ Enclosure cc: Joe Weith, William A. William O. City Planner Fead, Esq. Fisk Ver truly yours, oJle'ph S. McLean CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 ) Name of Applicant Homer and Marie Dubois 2 ) Name of Subdivision Ledgeknoll Phase III 3) Submit Subdivision Fee 4) Describe Subdivision (,i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of land use, gross floor area for commercial or industrial uses): 40 residential lots on 33 acres, 12000 s.f. lots served by municipal water and sewer lines 5) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone numbers of owner of record, applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: none 6) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer Tyler Hart, P.E., Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 b. Surveyor Scott Taylor, Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 C. d. Plat Designer Tyler Hart, P.E. Same address as above 7) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since sketch plan application: No 'such changes 1 8) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all contiguous properties: qp,. arras -hart list of abutting In downers 9) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designer(s) of the preliminary map(s) accompanying this application: Master plan SP1, Site plans SP2, SP3, Profiles P1. P2, Details D1,D2,D3,D4,D5 10) COST ESTIMATES for Planned Unit Developments, multi -family and commercial and industrial complexes: a) Buildings N/A b) Lands cap ingpercentage of const cost per City Requirements c) All other site improvements (e.g., curb work Rnnri anti infractruct„re at S 200/ lineal footx3300 ft = $ 660,000 11) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC for Planned Unit Developments, multi- family projects, and commercial and industrial complexes (2-way traffic, in plus out): A.M. Peak hour 32 T.E. P.M. peak hour 43 T.E. Average daily traffic 414 T.E. % % of trucks 12) Attach FIVE copies and ONE reduced copy (11 x 17) of preliminary map showing the following information: a) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the City., b) Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. c) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 2 d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. e) The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdi- vided. f) Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks and other public or privately main- tained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. g) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades where change of exist- ing ground elevation will be five feet or more. h) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. i) Numerical and graphic scale, date and truce north arrow. �) Detail:s of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. k) Details of proposed connection with the existing sani- tary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 1) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed, location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface soil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. m) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. n) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culvert which may be required. o) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless on existing street intersection is. shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. P) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. M 13) Development timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) : Start fall 1996, Phases according to market cond anticipatiiing3 year buildout. 14) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: Done 15) 1) All existing subdivision, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the records owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street adjoining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing, filed or pro- posed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the subdivider's entire holding. ( S igr}�gt i ) applicant or contact person ` ollio I-aridutn May 27, 1988 1 Page Parkiny,L. The 4900 square foot office requires 20 spaces. The day care for 60 children requires 12 spaces using Burlington's standards for 32 total spaces. The plan shows 41 spaces but a dumpster blocks one of these spaces. Landscaping: The $700,000 building requires 514,500 in new landscaping. The plan is valued at approximately $10,200 and should be revised to reflect the required amount prior to permit. Traffic: Enclosed is a traffic study by Roger Dickinson. The study concludes that 78 trip ends will be generated during the p.m. peak hour. It estimates that 75% will access from Spear Street. Quarry Hill Road will have a level of service A both with and without the project in 1988 and 1993. Although the study finds that no additional turning lanes are needed, the width of Quarry Hill Road is substandard, according to the study. Upgrading it to a City Street will solve this problem. Craig Leiner has reviewed the study and has no comments on it. Sewer: The office requires 300 gallons per day sewer allocation; the day care requires 1005 gpd for children and staff for 1305 total. The $2.50 per gallon fee must be paid prior to permit. Setbacks: The proposed building does not infringe on the 50 foot setback from the interstate ramp or the setback from the brook (Conservation Zone). Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. 4) Village at Dorset Park, Southsett Partnership, 900 Dorset Street Southsett Partnership proposes to develop 108 multi -family units in 27 buildings and 70 single-family lots on 40 acres. The area is zoned Agricultural- Rural Residential. Access: access is shown from the 32 foot wide Swift Street Extension within an 80 foot right-of-way that will be deeded to the City. Two streets run northerly from Swift Street extension to serve the development. Circulation: Circulation is adequate with all public streets throughout the project. Parking: The multi -family buildings show 12 spaces for every 4 units including garage spaces. The single family units will have a tc;o car aara�.:e r�r,r! two spaces in -ac�h �1ri r,�;:t.. I �)t!111(1r afit i(Jill Iy 2 7 , 1 988 Pave 3 Setbacks: The single family units will have a 'ZO foot front yard, 10 foot side,yard and 30 foot rear ,yard setback. The multi- family are shown with a 20 foot front yard setback minimum. Landscar,in_a, ponds and recreation amenities: The multi - t*,ami 1 y units require an $85,500 landscaping bond. The plan is valued :it 5331000. A significant increase is needed to the foundation plantings around the multi -family structures. The street trees and single family units require a 519 ,000 borld. The District Environmental Commission (Act 250) reGuiI—Pd :a Landscaped buffer area along the northwest boundary'. i'h i S requires a $9800 bond.. Although Act 250 had good intentions tht, proposed plan does little to provide screening due to the small, trees that are proposed. Three ponds are shown as well as a swimming pool and two tennis courts. Eight parking spaces are shown in front of the club house/sales building. Sewer and Water: An 80,100 gallon per day (plus 1500 for infiltration) sewer allocation is needed and the $2.50 per gallon fee shall be paid by the developer. Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. 5. Dorset Land Company, 421 Dorset Street This public hearing was continued from an earlier meeting so that additional traffic data could be discussed. Enclosed is a revised study that shows the effect of a northbound on -ramp and the left turn lane from Williston Road onto Dorset street. The�y�udy concludes that without the on -ramp i.n 1991 the nctrT"_ound traffic volumes will increase on Dorset Street while southbound volumes will decrease. (See Table I, page 2 of traffic study) As a result of this shift in traffic patterns and without an additional left turn lane on Williston Road, the effects on intersections are "moderate", according to the study. All levels of service are A or B for overall int.erset-•t icon operation except during the 1997 P.M. peak for the southern V. Mall intersection and the Kennedy Drive intersection. 'these two will drop to C if the on -ramp is in place. without it.. thtzy sta.- at B. Adequate signal timings are required. No data is-a1verl o:-. the levels of service for each of thF turning movements. oniv overall LOS is given. :3 PLANNING COMMISSION 31 May 1988 s page 7 Mrs. Hurd moved the Planning Commission approve the revised final plat of Southsett Partnership for the Village at Dorset Park consisting of 108 multi -family units in 27 buildings and 70 single family lots on 40 acres, a 2.2 acre lot for the existing farmhouse and 68 acres deeded to the City as depicted on a plan entitled "Village at Dorset Park" dated 5/10/88 prepared by Fitz- patrick -Lie with the following stipulations: .1.An $85,000 landscaping bond shall be posted for the multi family units. The plans shall be revised prior to permit to reltect this amount. 2. A $197,000 landscaping bond shall be Posted prior to permit the street trees. ,4`.�A $9800 landscapinq bond shall be posted prior to permit for /vJ�'C he buffer in the northwest corner. This buffer shall be revised prior to permit to show larger trees 4. An 81,600 qpd sewer allocation is granted and the $2 50 per gallon fee shall be paid prior to permit. a 5. A bond for streets, sidewalks, sewer and water shall be posted prior to permit in an amount determined by the City Engineer. 6. Legal documents and covenants including street offers of ded- ications, deeds, and any other easements or rights -of -way shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval within 90 days Legal documents to restrict the infringement on the wooded area adjacent �r to the park land shall be prepared for the City Attorney s approval with the City serving as enforcer of this covenant. No _j,_­,�rees shall be cut and no digging shall occur in a 20 foot deep area along_ the western property line of the proposed development. The plans shall show this area and this restriction shall be on the recorded plans 7, Single family units will have a minimum 10 foot sideyard set- backs, 20 foot front yard setbacks and 30 feet in the rear. Mul tiple-family dwellings will have a 20 foot setback minimum from the front and back property lines ��. All street names shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval within 90 days 9. An engineer shall supervise the placement and completion of the fill for new streets and utilities, including tasking the necessary compaction tests Test results shall be forwarded to of rill will be performed in conformance with State highway con- struction specifications. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION #! May 1988 page 8 10, No b, U, n,,,lq Permits will be issued until streets have the gravel sub -base installed on the cluster where requested The development shall be phased andparmhasing plan shall be submitted to the C1t Planner within 90 1, A utilit lap shall be submitted to the Cit En ineer for approval p�,tc �in ny construction lion of asone cable TV electricalllinesuandde tstreeta lights, The electrical, tele hone and cable TV lines shalt be constructed in a utilit easement outside the street ri ht-of-wa . 12, U on com letion of the bituminous concrete base course street name si ns and traffic control signs shall be installed b the owner of the ro'ect, Location of all si ns will be a the City proved by 13, The followincr items shall be required of the developer a reed to in the first a royal: t --.s.—_ a s a) Construction of a left turn lane (for turns into the develo - ment) on southbound Dorset Street, The length and the desi n will be 250 feet roved b a the CitY Engineer prior to ermit, 1"A $25 000 contribution toward the re avin of Dorset Street and workwi ebet to 24 fet ween Ke work will be done nned Drive and Swift Street. The b the Cit durin the summer of 1988, c) Construction of a shared throw h and left ion the development street at the Dorset Street intersection. The followin items will be completed b the Cityor a future developer when the Calkins roperty to the south is develo ed. 'Tie cost will be s lit 3 ways between Southsett Partnershi Calkins develo er and the Cit The total cost is estimated at $23 000 with a $7667 share for Southsett Partnershi ,. a) The relocation of the southbound left turn lane at Swift and Dorset Street when the new street shifts to the south to align with Swift. ($2 000) b) The relocation of the intersection south ($21,000) to align with Swift. Southsett Partnership shall contribute a share of the cost of the ture lop ran qe im rovements in this area based on the 138 8 tripends generated by this development Total future tripends in she outer Dorset Street corridor are estimated at 1724 and ndsin sett Partnershi will be res onsible for 8% or $5072. a) Wide nin Swift Street to Spear b) Repaving Swift ($8400) 35,000). PLANNING COMMISSION 31 May 1988 page 9 c) An exclusive right turn lane o Swift Street ($10,000). southbound Dorset Street at d) An exclusive left turn lane on the eastbound approach of Street (S10.5551 14. The recorded plans ahll show a note on the ponds and the outlet structure that they are owned and maintained by the homeowners in the development. 15. Plans shall be submitted to the CityEn ineer for approval that show middle pond overflow provJsions for jj-,n9 the southerly and 16. The sewage pumping station site shall have a curb cut for parking maintenance equipment This shall be shown on the re - Cur lea plan 17. The plans shall be submitted to the Water Department for approval prior to permit ift 18. Curb cuts on corner lots shall be reviewed and approved hv the Planner prior to ermit so they are as far from the corner as possible ..9. Mail box location(s) and shown on the plans shall be coordinated with the post office Twelve fire hydrants shall be shown on the 21ans in locations t� CIPP.oved by the South Burlington Fire Chief. 21. No top soil shall be plans stripped from the sna11 Show conce tual ark labs includln ballfieldRecorded lans arkin lots after review and approval b the Cit 22. The followin items are required by the City En ineer: a) The City Water Department shall review and a rove the water main design within 90 days b) Water main fill-in pouring. shall be covered with lastic prior to 23. Three copies of revised Plans reflecting these changes shall be submitted to the Cit Planner within 90 days. 24. The developer shall furnish the City with the names of the contractors and or builders 7 da s prior to construction and u o. completion of the work shall certify mance that the work is in confor PLANNING COMMISSION 31 May 1988 page 10 26. No spaces desi ned for ara es a!! ters The covenants shall ref1A�,. be_converted to livinc 27• It is (reflectin or this ap Planner a the aPpllcant's responsibility to record g the above changes) with the City Clerk �roval is null and void, n3 si ned b the Chairman oPlClerkuof thea prior to recording the final plat within 90 days ,?Proved by the commission Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which thenpasse d unanimousl 6. Continue Publi ross s c Hearing: Dorset Land Com an for a 218 800 ft, office com lex with li shots, 421 Dorset Street deharmac and 2 small C. Deslauriers introduced Steve Hastings who presented a supple- mental traffic study, Mr. Hastings noted the e at the last meeting as to affects of the question arose at if northbound on -ramp at Kennedy Drive and rthe sadditonalPleft turnhe lane from Williston Rd, to Dorset St, were not in place. The also considered whether there was a need for a traffic li ht at the south San Remo Drive intersection, g Regarding the I-89 northbound on -ram of not having this in place was light�except they fatnthehWilliston at the pRd. intersection. By 1991, this intersection would be at level d, by 1997, it would decline in "D" "F The San Remo Drive traffic llight nwould tnotbe warranted ' ' 1989 but would be warranted b likely Y at level y 1991, �n Mrs, Lafleur noted that the first phase of the JHK traffic stud did not assume City Center development. study which has P The new phase of the y jections, just been received does include City Center pro - Mr. Jacob said he was concerned with Dorset STreet with this de- velopment and the planned City Center development and su meeting with the Council to discuss it. P ggested a Mr. Hastings said they recommended peridic He felt the proposed project was compatible withews theoJHKobase,St, Williston Rd/Dorset St will inevitably be the weak link which w' require some sort of mitigating action ill level. All other intersections can operate on a regional he felt, with or without this P Y good levels, project. A resident of the area asked if there has been an air quality study as related to additional traffic, Mr. Jacob said this was addressed for the University Mall have to be looked at again in lightrOf ethebnewctrafficnwould .study. M E M O R A N D U TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner RE: Public Hearing: The Village at Dorset Park DATE: June 17, 1988 Bob Marcellino and John Hausner of Homestead Design have purchased the 40 acre parcel subdivided from the Brand Farm from Gerry Milot. They have redesigned the previously approved development and have renamed it the "Village at Dorset Park". On May 31, 1988 the Planning Commission granted approval for 108 multi -family units and 70 single family lots on 40 acres. (See enclosed Planning Commission approval motion) The multi -family units increased in number and the single family decreased from the previous approval. Access: Access is shown from the 32 foot wide Swift Street Extension within an 80 foot right-of-way that will be deeded to the City. Two streets run northerly from Swift Street extension to serve the development. Circulation: Circulation is adequate with all public streets throughout the project. Parking: The multi -family buildings show 12 spaces for every 4 units including garage spaces. The single family units will have a two car garage and two spaces in each driveway. Setbacks: The single family units will have a 20 foot front yard, a 10 foot side yard and a 30 foot rear yard setback. The multi -family are shown with a 20 foot front yard setback minimum. Landscaping, ponds and recreation amenities: The multi -family units require an $85,500 landscaping bond. The plan is valued at $33,000. A significant increase is needed in the foundation plantings around the multi -family units and this change was required by the Planning Commission. The street trees and single family units require a $197,000 bond. The District Environmental Commission (Act 250) required a landscaped buffer along the northwest boundary. This requires a $9800 bond. Although Act 250 had good intentions, the proposed plan does little to provided screening due to the small trees proposed. Increasing the size of the plantings was also a condition of their approval. Three ponds are shown as well as a swimming pool and two tennis courts. Eight parking spaces are shown in font of the club house/sales building. 1 I Memorandum - Cy„y Council June 17, 1988 Page 2 Sewer and Water: An 81,000 gallon per day (plus 1500 for infiltration) sewer allocation is needed and the $2.50 per gallon fee paid prior to permit. The water department must review and approve the plans prior to permit. Traffic Improvements and Fees. A number of improvements are required of the developer immediately. Impact fee contributions are also included in the approval motion based on this developments' share of future improvements. Other: See attached minutes for all other Planning Commission minutes. Also enclosed are the P.U. D. criteria which should be the basis for the City Council's approval motion. Pq PLANNING COMMISSION 27 March 1990 page 2 2. Minutes of 16 January 1990 Mr. Craig moved to approve the Minutes of 16 January as written. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion assed unanimous-1 with Mr. Belter clustaining. 3. Public Hearing: Revised Final Plat application of Southsett Partnership c/o Homestead Desiqn, Inc, for construction of a 178 unit planned residential develo ment consistinq of 63 single tamely units and 115 multi family units, Village at Dorset park Swift Street Extension , Mr. Marcellino said they want to widen some condo units and erase 7 single family lots and replace them with 7 condo units. Everything else would stay the same and the density would be the same. Ms. Peacock noted a memo from the Fire Chief on fire walls. Mr. Marcellino said they have been providing that type of fire wall. They have also provided the corner hydrant at the northeast corner of the project. It was inadvertantly omitted from the drawing. Mr. Weith noted the landscape requirement for multi- family units is $1100 per unit and also requires a larger bond. Mr. Marcellino said that is no problem. Mrs. Maher felt the ap- plicant should have been allowed credit for trees they are saving and said sometimes you have to reward people for positive action. Members agreed on $1,000 per unit. Ms. Peacock moved the Commission approve the REvised Final Plat application of Southsett Partnership, c/o Homestead Design, for construction of a 178 unit Planned residential develomentnc, consistin of 63 single-family units and 115 multi family units, as depicted on a 5 page set of plans entitled "Village at Dorset Park, a Planned Residential Develo ment," Prepared b Fitz atrick- Llewellyn,and dated 12/89, last revised 2/9/90 with the fol lowing stipulations 1. The applicant shall post an additional $25,9001, 3 year land scapinq bond prior to permit to cover the multi family units to be built The applicant expressed that a minimum of $1,000 Per 'U will be spent on landscapinq according to the typicals shown onit the 3 page set of plans entitled "Typical landscape/Site Plan" prepared by Homestead Desiqn, Inc, and dated 3/27/90 The land- scape plan shall be revised prior to Permit to show the sizes of proposed landscape species 2. The condominium Association rules shall include a provision which prohibits the conversion of garage space to living space. -� The City shall be granted enforcement rights for this provision. The condominium Association rules shall be submitted to the Ct Attorney for approval prior to Permit PLANNING 27 March 1990ISSIpN Page 3 3• Sidewalks 3 All w ks shall be continuous across su 1 ulat. toss driveWa S. s• erseded b thissacOrovalea In the S/31/8 The hall 8 a within 90vda ea final lc sh a 1 roval and not °r this a all be reco Mr. Belt roval is riled with er Seconded, null and void, the Cit Clerk Motion -4_ Re ort assed unanimous) Comm' e Presentation b itte the South . Mr, Shea Berlin ton Sout Mr. S s then Comm' beast Quadrant n gave Committee members. a) Populat individual reportsfojb-Committee re consider lon: Vince30ld lows; Presen Plan Population uc said roadsthe city�s the Committee a on magnet P011ce, water growth as part Of the agrees for growt etpartThe larlY with re fort to manage the need to some reasonab y agreed the regard to schools and h °r an area 1.24$ for the 1e growth rate a of no growth. clty shOuldn,t should be city and It be building used as a too1.45$aforntheecoust 20 years be at asked if permits In determining count , which w f there is Provi ermining growth They felt Po as buildin ding for infrastruc (regul, Population births g Permits, any way to contr° Lure, etc• g the gulate l trend deaths said e Bolduc growth other �� Mrs. Mahe the last d51n the or or control there are 3 choican regulating r Committee ti'ears, He felt Mr. rate migration, Mrs: regulate g felt it could use, Mr, Bold that 1.45, goewas s from 1.45% Craig said for various be argued thatc said the Coma for'h and econom the mit t e fi gore then felt comfortable reasons 1970 s and noted this able wit , SO they too 1980's w and b) Land h that. k the average unusual Plan for Use; Mr, of the 2 quadrant for same uses�sara they genera use, natural areas shoo P imtriai•reTiden ialcWith nil continuing t clustering Indus Bring and vat' be Y agreed corner of ° mi1lti-famil lety in Preservehe that whatever the allows amicluserones types of They recommendhatever the mme g and a recommended housing, Both Inpromoting reco nd prese more Primarily to aesthetics city • to rve n9 i t , Theynfe Space. ce • Regaracause mul t gle infami Open hetics and qualitnal and state ecoat agricu 9 Open space, lY space, Y of nomi lture isthey economical) They real life, es, and beneficial It They recommen viable if snot that agriculturs0 a meanslof In terms of Burl - trust concepts•thTheit oPromotedagrbcusubsidy or otrlingtonPresery isinot Regardingnot recommend. via TO her means, commercial subsidies, S and land uses, in time, when dens justify, these !D M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planner Re: Next meeting's agenda items Date: 2/24/78 ,-J. Business Park North I have met with Gordon McArthur, from the State Highway Department, and Dick Spokes, concerning traffic and on site sewage disposal, respectively. I will have additional information to present on both topics at the hearing. 2. Morgan (A1's French Fries) Subdivision Nothing new has been submitted to date on this application since the previous meeting. I feel tabling would be appropriate, untU additional information is presented. 3. Palmer Storage Building Location map and comments previously sent to you. -14. Chastenay Revised Site Plan This plan is for an apartment and office building (now under construction) at the corner of I-189 and Kennedy Drive, which originally showed 20 parking spaces. In order to save more existing trees, and provide a better approach to the main parking area, it has been proposed that 5 spaces be deleted. I feel this is an improvement over the previous plan, and still affords the required number of spaces (15). 5. Glenwood Sketch Plan This is a resubdivision proposal for the former Cedar Glen North [property, now under new ownership. The project entails 181 new townhouse units, in addition to the 20 existing units. The overall density conforms to the allowed density of 4 units per gross acre. The impact of the first phase (92 units) on the most critical municipal facilities is nominal because: 1) school children have already been factored in by the School Department in their estimates, 2) sewage capacity is adequate at the Bartlett's Bay treatment plant and 3) the distance from any signallized or congested intersection is so great that it would be difficult to assign any incremental impacts on traffic from this project. The situation is unchanged with regard to police and fire protection, although Water line sizing and hydrant location will be reviewed by the Fire Chief. In sum, I feel the primary consideration with regard to Phase I is the physical arrangement of parking, roads, and buildings (utilities are already in). As for Phase II, both physical layout and impact on municipal services merit a thorough review. See attached sketch for location and summery of site and fringe conditions. 6. Econolodre and ICY Site Plans 11"he 60 day time clock expires on these projects narch lc ana :.arc" 17 respectively. I suggest you deny these applications and invite them to reapply when the various deficiencies are cleared up. PLANNING COMMISSION r—ETING APRIL 25. 1978 The South`Burling'ton Planning Commission heldZa regular meeting on -Tuesday, April 25, ' 1978 at'7i 30 P.M. in the City Hall Conf er6iice`Room,' 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington;"Vermont. " MEMBERS PRESENT i �... _ . - - • . .. :'� tt, s t g _ t ... t i , Chairman William B. Wessel, Ernest Levesque, Sidney B. Poger, James R. Ewing, David Morency,:W.'Kirk Woolery and George J. Mona.""' ��`'• : - �'- MEMBERS ABSENT. ' None OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Stephen Page, Free Press Reporter Scott Sartorius, Robert A. Lang, Bill Brown, Audrey Park, Gloria Sessions, Don Sessions, Madge Kepf, Jerry Olsen, Sid Levitsky, Carl H. Lisman, Esq., Mervin Brown, Terrence `J.' Boyle, Edward Smith, Pete M. Collins, Veronica Mellish, Paul Mellish, Larry MacKenzie, Elizabeth MacKenzie, George and Joanne Weal, Chuck Munson, Alan Palmer, Louise'Flynn, James Lamphere and Ray Unsworth- READING OF THE MINUTES OF APRI L 18 , 1978 - ' Mr. Poger made a motion to postpone the reading of the minutes of April 18, 1978 until the next regular meeting.- The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed unanimously. - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION OF GLENWOOD CORP. Chairman Wessel reported that the Planning Commission had walked the site of the proposed development. Lawyer Carl Lisman said he had talked ---with Mr. Moser, an adjoining property owner, about the drainage run-off and had reached an agreement. He said there would be site work on the second Moser lot and that Mr. Moser seemed satisfied. ' Planner Stephen Page said he had met with residents of -the-ArsaeAnd"iheyrbave serious and legitimate concerns about the ability of the sewer lines to aecomodate the enlargement of Cedar Gl&n North. -They have reservations about -the citys review of the sewer capacity when the development was first constructed and now. Mr. Page felt that preliminary approval should have a stipulation that City Engineer Szymanski meet wi th the residents engineer to resolve the Atfferences.'=2Xhe -residents should have a response to their concerns. Other concerns brought out at the meeting were about traffic, drainage and water supply. Mr. "Wessel remarked that improvements on the above concerns -would-be bonded and Mr. Page said the people seemed to want more.details on the improveaentse-:IMr:_. Morency_said that Mr. Szymanski would be'the one to answer the questions on the sewer, and other improvements, agreeing that Mr. Szymanski should get together with their engineer. 1 'PLANNING• COrMISSION MEETING •-APRI L 25, 1978 Mr. -.Bona and Mr. Poger­both, felt that. th'i sewer -problem should be. -looked into. Mr. Robert Lang, a+ resident of the area, said that Mr.' Page had covered the concerns of the people. He said they questioned• the wisdom of adding demands on the sewer system and felt the sewers�shoul-a'berrepairid before being added to. He said there are ether areas in the system that-,vere never looked at, pointing out that some -of the system has been in_aore than half�the normal lifetime of 25 years. ":- Mr. Morency asked what else beside the. sewer system presented problems. Mr.- Page said. there were some drainage problems on the lower section of the project, but that it was nothing costly and also that looping of the water line should be done. Mr. Lang said having more units would bring on the added expense of educating the children in our schools since the original Cedar Glen plan did not include children. Mr. Levesque pointed out that we must have housing for our children when they graduate from high school or college. Mr. Mona brought up the questions of catch basins and was told that all the catch basins were in place. Mr. Mona then questioned having a single access road to take care of what will eventually be a fair number of houses. Steve said he had asked for a reservation for a 501_ right-of-way. Mr. Eving felt ,it should be a 604 right-of-way- if it was eventually going to be a street. Mr. Woolery made a motion for approval of the preliminary plat applicaation which was seconded by Mr. Poger. Mr. Wessel asked for discussion on the motion and the folloving changes were agreed upon: In stipulation 2: That for a total of 6 be inserted after the phrase '"4 additional hydrants." In stipulation 3: Delete the words (goverened by the Paulsen Associates report associated with the Cedar Glen North proposal) and change the word "interpreted" to determined. Add stipulation 5:-City Engineer to meet with Laurel Hill residents and their _ Engineer and the applicant, if he so desires, re severs and loopingofwater lines and a reporLy.of..the City Engineer's conclusions be sent to the Planniag.Coamisaioa by May Sth. Mr. Mona then read Mr. Woolery's amended motion as follows: I move that •the South BurlinAton'Plonning Commission approve the preliminary Plat application of the Glenwood Cor ration for 92 condominium -units as depict on a plan set of 2 pastes, entitled "Glenwood Site Plan" dated 2 23 78, drawn by Terrance Boyle, subject to the followings stipulations: 1. A pede_strian•easement,'skirtinA cluster "C" to connect the UVM property to the city parkland, shall be shows �..._ ._.�= on the final plat. 2. The final plat shall also show: 4 additional hydrants, for a total of 6. to be installed as shown on the plan of record, minimum -building separations of 30', resitinj of_units atop the water line, total number of bedrooms and approxi- mate breakdown by unit and "loop" road name and revised project name. 3. Engineering shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for storm drainage, water mains, and sewer lines. Sewer line sizing and capacity shall be as determined by the City Engineer. Bonds for all required improvements, especially for the sewer line improvements in the Laurel Hill area, shall be set in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer 3, PIANNING COMMISSION MtzTING APRIL 25,---1978--- "`Because of_uncertaitrtY retzardinA the adequacy of the present VIdth _ of_the Phase I "Loop" Road, the Commission retains the right to require widening of the pavement 'to' 20, with 49 gravel shoulders, during review of the next phase, if the 20' width proves to be inadequate'ln'Phase' I - • .-' caii EnRineer to meet with' Laurel- H1-11`resIben' s-inetheI i "Ineer, and th a applicant if he sv desires,'re sewer and looping of water lines and a report of the City Engineer's conclusions be sent to the Planning Commission by May-5. 1978 Chairman%Wessel calked fora vote -on the motion and th a vote vas unanimous in favor of passage. a. • -f - SITE PLAN REVIEW, LOT #I, MUDDY BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK Chairman Wessel called on Mr. Alan Palmer to comment on this proposal. Mr. Palmer pointed out details of the application'on the plan, saying this would be a 40' by 60" steel building with access from a new street, would have a gravel drive and tdrning access_ to the building, the -water would be -connected to the Champlain Water District, that the sewer plans,' lot size and setbacks all meet" the city requirements, etc. Mr. Poger asked about road improvements and Mr. Palmer said that all road improvements would be bonded and that-he'is following up on the improvements to be made by the state. Mr. Poger-said he felt the roadways should be completed before the building can be used. Mr. Woolerty asked about the run-off and Mr. Palmer said that it was being taken care of. _ Mr. Page pointed out that there are 5 lots concerned, 3 could be developed, but the developer would have to code back before the commission before getting approval for the rest. - Mr. Woolerty'made a motion that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Mr. Alan Palmer for a 2400 square feet contractor's buildings, as depicted on a plan entitled, "Site Plan Lot drawn by Alan Palmer, dated March 23, 1978, subject to tht following stipulations' 1. The required improvements to Williston Road shall be completed prior to occupancy. 2. A landscaping bond of $1,000 shall be posted. 9."-This approval expires 6 months from this date. The motion vas seconded by Mr. Poger and passed- unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT APPLICATION OF MERLIN -_CORPORATION (FOR RED COACH GRILL Chairman Wessel asked Mr. Page to cot, ent on this application. Mr. Page discussed the general facts'of the application, pointing out the location, saying the property contains 9 acres and the_plan is to subdivide 3 acres, leaving 6 acres for a Red Coach Grill Restaurant that would seat 250 patrons. -He said the sewer capacity and approach access to Dorset Street were o.k., the internal circulation plan, parking and landscaping plans all meet the city requirements. He mentioned that the second curb cut could not be lined up with 100 Dorset Street but he thought It was not too bad. He added that the internal circulation plan was reviewed by ' Bruce Houghton, the Vermont Highway Department personnel and Mr. Szymanski and they had no objections. S. P ;bZ?1C CG; ��I_SS IOIi I'm 6, 1938 Mr. Yona said be would like to discuss traffic. This develop=ent will have only one exit and that will be uphill onto Spear Street. Yx. Vessel said -a previous commission approved the layout. Mr. Mona asked if there should be s deceleration lane and was told the city would tare to put it in if it canted one. •- rx. Poger moved to close -the public hearinK. The notion was seconded by Kr. Levesque and F.assed un=ni=ouslp. racer then moved that the So.2th rurlin-ton Plarmrin.e: Commission aL ;rc.v�e the iir•.sl plat aurlication of the G_er' ood Corporation for cs T 2 ;�Qdi i•i G^ol uTitS_ Cf -Vi O'�Sly } _L'- v 2d Ul2t Of FdCC)_T, I \7 - — c - r=i - �'J1tE P1E_n- - - • d - �S .s depicted on a ply set of 2 ` :_s e1�_t_a Derr:sce �Oole, dpjE3 C �3 is+-__-"v�C� t0_�::e-fO1lCring St1DU_L1= =S: - T- 1 --- _ - -- - =o of E 5 7S ='=a l 1 apple = i th 1. ^'se provisions of the Sc:_ - : � i � -- 2a E1_:11 d•'lnt:2 �' all -=� -.vGd zE"c- =-•_Tl ti.l �n mane J-1,21 rill E.�a ra.cl-_ - _- a� jc shall =Gad RP. orT-. c5 ^_ 1 5 small read nre.ce-1—tr_1i ee:se---nt e-ill be relocated Oi_ C1L'�.Er C. C-:CJ3 and In e c` �u=ed b,.�_-`—nz 011eZ—Gf' iC=i�}�n.e- -al"YP _� shall l 1,e C;?_i l t-G1t C— -- =__r 1c_lOd �) Ef-s=ould be stric'�en. 2, b final plat, i ncor:�o: stin& all reouired revisions, shall be _ - — - j. Fz-oiect to be named "Stonehedge'. The notion vas seconded by :fr. E-wing and carried with Yr. Yona abstaining. Growth controls The cosission liked (5i - �ffectiva period of preliminary a-P.oval. Page's concern vas revised final Flats, sore of which are used to buy time. (6) - Zoning Pei;u7ationz - the co::.=ission felt the period should be IS =Gn the (6) - TestFd rirb`.s - t`,e co==is-ion li?:cd this ices. SEver facilities - . ze.re said :.be 2•.c•::red sexes a=enc=el: of v •1Lg re - ssed. is. ?:'J 1J Lcved.'t::at :ne Cb8ir=an of the 1ns, - inter per r= P?ar.nlnr Co:_:ssion repo, _Fnd to the City Cr,ur,cil the adoption of the c:- a-,'= ent to t'r_•e «veer : F^:1 eti ons. Tae motion ':as seconded by ;%r. rCrE:E= •-SL-4 :!,c: ,.•L� 1�`'--} El '.E=t(d:f ni-14ing t.^.e re- er CECtiC•:5 8t E.^.G :'r.e=to::r.g :Ls c�cla=cd [--d- ::r:,e". ct 11.00 i-- 5. PLANNING COMMISSION NOV ' DER 5. 1979 developer could make the improvements and maintain it. Mr. Woolery did not want that access open until the Commission, City Engineer, and Fire and Police Chiefs could agree on how to handle it. Mr. O'Bryan felt the abutting development could maintain the easement since it was so short on this developer's side. Mr. ;Mona felt the note on the drawing relating to the access should be removed. It was suggested that there be a simple recording of the right of way. Ns. Poger said the easement should be provided as the City Attorney suggests. Mr. Page said they had looked at the two nearest signallized intersections to this project - Williston Road and Kennedy Drive, and Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. He said that traffic consultant Bruce Houghton's analysis of the capacity of those intersections is based on a one hour count on January 9.; The applicants observed the intersection themselves for 4,1/2 hour periods and found it not to be as congested as Mr. Houghton suggests. Mr. Page noted that they had not calculated the capacity or the range of service. Air. Woolery noted that this development would not affect the left turn movement from Hinesburg Road onto Kennedy but said it would affect the left turn off Williston Road onto Kennedy, both of which movements are at high capacities according to Mr. Houghton. It was suggested that left turn arrows be put in place before the application was approved. Mr. Page felt the intersections were not at level D. At Hinesburg Road, he said they looked at 41 cycles and no car waited through a signal change to get through. The average was 4 cars through during a cycle, the maximum was 8, and 10 of the cycles had no traffic going through. The traffic study for the project, done by Land Plan Inc. shows that only one car will come from the Williston -Kennedy intersection, where Mr. Houghton shows it is not lower than level C service. :•Ir. Woolery felt this developer was putting an exceptionally costly sidewalk in and he felt left turn arrows were an imposition on top of that cost. Y.r. :Mona moved to continue the Public hearing on the final plat application of L.T.H. Associates for a 17 unit apartment Project at 200 Kennedy Drive to two weeks fro-- tonight November 27, at City Hall, at 7 30 Pm Mr. Ewing seconded the motion and it carried with Messrs. Jacob and Woolery voting no. Public hearing on final Plat application of the;Glenwood Corporation-) for Phase li 1109 condominium units) of the Stone ecc ucv a e m-en-'h Mr. Page said the area in question was 43 acres, of which 7 were deeded to the City for parkland. It is zoned R4 and final plat approval has been given for phase 1 (92 units). The applicants are aware that the City has made application for federal funding for a land swap and purchase of some property and if that happens they will come to the Commission for approval of buildings and parking. Walkways will be constructed from the buildings to parking areas and detailed construction drawings will be given to the staff in City ?fall. Buildings will be constructed as shown on the plan, and detailed drawings will be given to the City before building permits are issued.. Additional access points to the locp road, asked for by the Fire Chief, have been shown. They propose that the loop road in this phase be the same asin phase 1 - 20' pavement with gravel base and 5' shoulders on both sides. There is room for a 60' right of way in phase I and in phase 2 also. It was mentioned that if the Commission -wanted City street standards in phase 2, it could also ask for the= in phase 1. I•Ir. Page noted that the first cluster of units was built in 1975 and is served by a private road. No requests have been Wade to the City to change the status of that road. Phase 1 is 112 completed, Mr. :age said. The City :Manager has suggested public streets. :r. Iona felt 20' streets were inadequate. Making the streets public was discussed. The base necessary to widen the streets exists. The Co=ission did not feel curbs were necessary, and a 24' pavement width was =entioned. There is parking provided within the clusters and none will be or. the streets. MANNING COMMISSION 6. NOVEMBER 13. 1979 Mr. Page said two sewer gaugings had been done and showed excess capacity for sewage flow into the Laurel Hill and Andrews Avenue sewers. There is a bottleneck on Imperial Avenue. Mr. Page said public streets would be acceptable if the standards were modified. Rights of way are shown to properties north and south of this project. It was pointed out that if a section of the loop road were blocked, emergency vehicles could not get all the way around the project. All utilities are public. The Commission would like to see 24' of pavement width and a 30' base for the road in both phases. Xr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for phase 2 109 units of the Stonehedge development until two weeks from tonight, November 27, at City Hall at 7.30 pm Mr. Jacob seconder the motion and all were in favor. Continuation of site plan review of"parking lot expansion for McDonald's at 1225 Williston Road The applicants have requested a postponement of the hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 pm. Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 2. NOVEMBER 27, 1979 4. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. 5. A landscaping bond of at least $2500 shall be etation meets the landscaping requirement ed: 6. The plan of record shall be revised to show contour changes, especially as affected by the fill for the sidewalk in the CO district. ,'fir. Jacob seconded the motion. I'ir. Page noted that everything shown on the plan, the developer was bound to. The motion carried without dissent. ontinuation of public hearing on final plat application of the-blenwood Corporatio: or phase II 109 condominium units of the Stonehedze development - Mr. Page said the Fire Chief had asked for access points from the clusters to the loop road and that on 3 out of the 7 clusters it had not been feasible to do that. One already had two access points and two, if connected, would have roads with slopes of 14-15�, which is not safe. There will be a turnaround within cluster J and the Chief has said he can live with this plan. A typical city street .road has been shown on the plan with 24' of pavement and a 30' base. 60' of right of way has been given for the road all the way around the site and the new road will tie into the end of the existing loop road in phase I. The developers want to upgrade the phase I road in stages and it will match the new road (24' pavement, 30' base). when the entire road is completed and inspected, it will be offered to the city, and if accepted, deeded over. An offer of dedication can be used for this. The developers agreed to all points of the City Engineer's 11/21/79 memo. .They also noted that in future this development can be connected to land to the north or south. If the land swap being contemplated in that area goes through, the project will have to be redesigned. Mr. Page gave the Commission a phasing schedule (copy attached). There was no problem with this schedule. Mr. Mona asked that the curbs come out tangent to two parallel lines 30' apatt by the cul-de-sac. He raised the issue of having so many dwelling units in an area with one entrance. Mr. Jacob suggested opening Andrews Avenue to solve the problem. Mr. Page said that when and if the need arose, a right of way could be extended to either north or south. A few buildings on the plan are shown on the property line. Mr. Page said it was the developers intention to get buildings at least 5' from the right of way. He added that as part of the application the developer was saying that if a specific plan for a cluster or building is different from what is shown on the large drawings, they will come back to the Commission, barring an administrative decision to the contrary. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for a 109 unit condominium project, as depicted on a Rlan entitled "Stonehed a ndo-iniiimq-Il se2,-.09 units", last revised 11 16 79, prepared by Ronald O'Bryan, subject to the following stipulations: - 1. Detailed site information for each cluster - including finished buildinr grades(and no building shall be closer than 5' to the 0' right of way , drainage, sewer, water and road details, walkways and other information - s'hall be provided .prior to the issuance of any building exit for that cluster. If the layout of ildinRs, parking areas and/or sever and water lines in any cluster has been significantly modified, the plan shall be resubmitted for revised final plat aperovalo PLANNING COMrIISS ION 3. NDMIBER 27, 1979 2. Wherever sewer or water mains are located outside of the proposed public street right of way, easements 20 feet in width shall be provided to the city, in form and content satisfactory to the City Attorney. 3. Sewer caps construction of the 1 be gauged prior t shall be issued until provision is made for adequate sewage flow through the bottleneck. at the Imperial Drive bottleneck unit. No subsequent building P 4. The stipulations of William Szymanski's memo, dated November 21, 1979, shall apply. 5. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. 6. Per the applicant's offer, 1) the streets when completed shall be offered to the city to become public streets and 2 the phase 1 road shall be ungraded in stages to be a 24' pavement with a 30' base. 7. Street access to any develo the southern boundary of this proper Mr. Mona seconded the motion. )ment to the south can be at any point On #2, the 20' easement will consist of 10';on each side of the lines. Mr. Jacob asked about the recreation fee and was told that 7.6 acres of land had been given to the city. Regarding access to land to the south, Mr. Page noted that this developer did not want to be required to accelerate his roadway schedule to accomodate another developer. The motion carried unanimously. Continuation of site plan review of parking lot expansion for McDonald's at 1225 Williston Road Mr. Spitzisaid the applicant had requested a two week delay. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the site plan review of Parking lot expansion for McDonald's"at 1225 Williston Road until two weeks from tonight, at City Hall, at 7:30 pm. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion and all were in f avor. Site plan review of 5000 square foot commercial building for South Burlington Realty Corporation at 60 San Remo Drive Mr. Douglas Schner said that a similar plan had been submitted to the Planning Commission in November of 1977, but at that time it was to be a building for a gym facility. Now they want to put in warehouse space. This plan has been to the Zoning Board. It was decided that since this is a different use, the drive around the building, formerly for dropping children off, has no use and has been eliminated. A green strip has been added around the north line and the entrance and exit has been altered. The building now is set back 50', as requested by the Zoning Board and 14 parking spaces are shown. There -is an existing stockade fence' on the east boundary. Plantings will be put in to upgrade the property and the plan for the adjacent vacant lot (also owned by the same company) will be a mirror image of this lot. 2+.r. Schner showed the Commission the drainage plan, connecting to the line on San Remo Drive. There might also be a drain under theloading dock area. No surface or roof drainage will go onto any other property. Mr. Levesque noted that there was residential land behind this property and he asked that more cedars be put on that linevthan on the side line, so there will 2. PT_ANtiIhG COMMISSION I'tO Commission felt it did not have enougr ir..o. whetner to zone that land Industrial or 4esJjertjsi, co it+w,,iV - n•a leave it floodplain for now so members could lock at -.ha tv i3^7. X Woolery moved to adopt theand Sutdjvj3icn regulations as amended 12117'80 With toe two corract;:as of .9nd with the addition of the proposed zor.ir.a mao revs s on3. 1•s. Jacob seconded the motion and it passed without dissent. ADOlication by R. Pecor and Associates for preliminary plat ap roval of a 14'1unit alar^ed unit development on Spear Street Mr. Mona arrived at this point. Mr. Page said the area was 51 acres in size and 143 units are proposed, of which 69 are single family lots and 74 are attached multi- family units. 12 single family lots have been dropped from the previous plan. The 69 lots take up about 39 acres, the streets take about 8 acres, and the rest is the multi -family area. The road network has been altered to provide access to Pheasant Way as the Commission requested at site -plan. There is only one "paperclip" left and the rest of the road network is made UP of city streets with 30' of pavement, curbs and a sidewalk on one aide. The access to the multi -family portion has an island in the middle and will be private. The island is for esthetics and to provide a second access to that part of the land in that an overturned vehicle cannot block both sides of that road. These is an existing natural buffer around the multi -family area and when the future city street is built, there will be a shorter north - south entrance to that area. Mr. Page said some overflow parking was provided in the paperclip. The City Manager does not want to maintain these spaces and 'fir. PoKer pointed out that if they were not maintained they would be useless in the winter. There is a large open area shown on the plan. Some landowners on Spear ::treet have been given view rights and will be able to purchase additional land behind their homes. This parcel is not part of this review but will be before the Commission at a later date for separate action. Audience members raised questions about lot sizes, setbacks, and trees in the area. One member asked whether the R1 setbacks would be adhered to in the R1 portion of the land. He was told that had not been re -solved. The Commission has not felt it would be desirable to have 1 acre lots in one area and 1/4 acre lots in another area. The Commission can, with a PUD, set whatever setbacbs it wants. There are 20acres zoned R1 and the rest is R4. The lots vary in size as proposed now. The issue of access to Pheasant Way was discussed. There is a difference of opinion between the owner of that street and the city as to whether it i a public or a private street and the issue is in court. The street has nots been deeded to the city yet and Mr. Ewing did not think the Commission could allow access to it under those conditions. _Mr. P o�;er felt t:^.e or oc'_em was out of the Commission's hands. He said development could be p kissed so nothing ® used :peasant Way until the issue was decided. Mr. Milot said ae had negotiated an agreement of access to Pheasant Way from the owner, tir. Ireland, but he said he would not ask for a building permit for the lots on that street because it is not a city street yet. He will not come to the city until the case is settled. One row of lots is affected by this. He suggested that until the case was settled he would bring the road over and rut in az emer;,ency access Only. Mr. Milot said they had originally proposed two accesses to Spear Street and the Commission had not liked that, so they charged the layo-at as requested. fry r'I,Ahti..�G "I . .tI�jTOy Mr. Ps: a addressed the issues raised in the F}sn rer's memo. He sa'_d setbacks could be increased in the r.ulti-faWilJ sect.." = r;a, the sirgrle lots, he said they requested a waive_ from t e t•:ical setLac:.,s for . _ lots because such Z_, I A. several corst:ai-cd y 1/2 acre lots. They set;,ac:ts such as those for Y or a setbac :: opert` ar..ai to t lot of size. r 'e ex:ected some staggering of useable areas so views could be maintained for a nsmoer of people. ;:r. Page said the access to Pheasant Way could be moved east 100-130'. He also fait the island was the best way to provide 2 accesses for the multi -family area. He said that as a result of two subdivisions of lard on Spear Street, the area in which the 80' right of way for the future street could go was pretty well fixed, unless the city wanted to condemn some houses to get it. 4. Mr. Levesque asked the Planner to check with the Police and Fire Chiefs 1% to see if they had had any problems with multi -family complexes with only one entrance, and he named two of these. ` ','r. Page said the water lines were mainly in the street rights of way, except between the multi -family area and the paperclip. Sewers will operate mainly by gravity and that will flow to the Bartlett Bay plant which has capacity now. Regarding drainage, Mr. Page said this was still schematic, but the city streets will have a closed system with catch basins. There are two existing swales, one going to the UV44 Horticultural Farm and one running between the farm and :.eadowood at Spear. There is a conceptual understanding thht surface runoff will be diverted to a culvert leading to the city parkland so as to maintain the water quality in the ponds on the WTI land.r,r. Pae said this land was not, as had been alleged, a water shed area for a much larger piece of lard east of Spear Street. He said the drainage plans would acco=odate the upstream area. .sir. Page said the developer proposed to pay a recreation fee, and, in answer to a question, Mr. Milot said it could be used anywhere in the city. .Mr. Page rreferred that it be used near this area. The pedestrian trail is shown. Mr. Spitz said it should be extended a little farther. Mr. Walsh asked about scenic overlooks. He said many residents of the city enjoyed the beauty of that area and he felt it was crucial to preserve the view. Mr. Spitz said there were many general references to such overlooks, but no sites were specifically mentioned, and in the absence of a city policy, he felt it was too late to ask for one here. Mr. Poger felt that some sites should be designated before the developers ca.=e in for final plat. .'•:r. Poger referred to letters from the Fire Chief, UVM, and Paul, Frank and Collins, representing residents of the area. Mr. Milot said a fence would be put on the north side of tr.e prooerty and he and U K would split the cost. It will be erected when site work is done. A natural boundary composed of a line of bushes will be preserve. Mr. Page responded to the City Manager's 1/9/81 memo. He said t ey did not control the Ireland streets, they would relocate the access point, they cannot answer the slope question until they have final drawings, and 3' gravel shoulders are no problem if that refers to the major drive. A plateau will be made at Spear Street for safe approaches to the road. Mr. ?eter Collins went over the points in his 1/13/81 letter to the Comm1s3ion. He said people were very concerned about drainage and water quality in the area as well as the proposed density, which seems to be about double that at Meadcwood and which they feel is a change in character. There is also concern about the number of driveways facing Pheasant Nay, and that some of the trees will be lost. 4. PLANNING CCMMISSIUN JA'+JAi Y 1"). tydl :Xs. Mona wanted to resolve the Rl-R4 mix quect4or. L; -� }, ' Poger felt the Cc==ission had to look at and discuss the prop3sai before it. X- Spitz was asked to designate some areas :or possi::le ocenic overlocts. ::_. rassner said a cyclone fence with barbed wire was not a rice addi.icn to the pedestrian trail (fence for the farm), that it might be nice to have an overlook on the trail, that the mazimum runoff needed to be calculated, and that traffic on :;pear itreet should be ioo4ed at. In answer to a question, Mr. i'itzpatrick said water in the area wculd be sufficient for fire flows plus domestic use. Mr. Collins said there was some question as to who owned both the roads and the utilities in the Meadowood development. X- Milot said he had an easement to the manholes and water lines in that development and could hook his lines to them. .Mr. roger said those were public utilities as far as the city was concerned, and it is the city's position that the road and utilities should deeded to the city. If those are not received, the City Attorney will be consulted as to the status of them. Mr. Larry Snyder of UVIj said the extent of the agreement on the storm water was that the University would look at a suggestion and if it is acceptable and a condition of approval, UV,N1 will not object to the development. Nor. Krassner felt some of the lots were strange shapes and should be forced to have some minimum amount of frontage, so future variances would not be encouraged. sold. Mr. Pilot said there would be an architectural review before lots were Mr. Foger asked if the Commission had a problem with this mix of multi -family and single family lots and no one did. He then asked about access to Pheasant Jay. Mr. Ewing felt the general layout was Pine but he wanted a legal opinion on access to Pheasant Way. He felt that what would happen with that street should be decided before the Commission allowed access to it. Mr. 'Noolery noted that the city had declared that street public but Mr. Ewing asked what would happen if the courts decided against the city. Mr. Poger said the city would not want to plan this project with access through a private sewer system, road network, or utility system. He did not feel the Commission could delay this project because of problems in another development and he asked for a legal opinion on the use of the utilities in a private way. 14r. ?oger said that the Commission had decided that as a condition of devaiopaent that street had to be public. Mr. Ireland has not yet submitted to that requirement and. it is in the courts. Mr. :Bona said he would not vote for a final motion of approval which would look at a phased development of the land except the house lots on Pheasant Way, in the hopes that that would be cleared up in the future. He also did not want to approve a development with only one access point. Mr. Milot responded that he had originally shown two accesses to :;pear Street and the Co=Liasion had asked for only one. He added that he could still leave a right of way to Spear btreet in case Mr. Ireland wins the case. Mr. Poger felt that right of way should be added. Mr. Walsh said he would like to look at this land again to see if he could see why it was zoned the way it is. He was not comfortable with the lot sizes as they are now. It was decided to go to -the site and meet with the developer and area representatives. !fir. Mona moved to continue the public hearin,z on the anclication of R. Pecor and Associates for rreliminery plat approval of a 1441 unit planned. unit development on Spear Street until January 27 l-�cl at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion, and all voted aye. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1981 that there was some Nowland land which may be swapped for parkland. If it is not, the parcel is landlocked and a right of *way needs to be left for it. .Lo-t 26 cannot be developed until the parkland question is resolved. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application by R. Pecor and Associates .for a 136 unit planned residential development as depicted on a plan entitled "Nowland Pro e Preliminary Plan," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, dated 1 81, subject to the following stipu a ions: 1. The intersection of the new street with Pheasant day shall be relocated southerly so as to line up between houses across the street Adequate vertical sight distance shall be maintained. 2. There shall be no more than 7 lots on Pheasant Way. 3. Improvements shall be made along Spear Street as necessary to provide adequate sight distance for the new northerly intersection 4. The acceptability of the two short loop streets shall be re-examined after complete drainage information is available. 5. Uncurbed private streets shall include a three foot wide gravel shoulder on each side. 6. A second entrance shall be provided to serve the multi -family units if advised by the fire chief and approved by the Planning Commission. 7. Adequacy of hydrants and access for fire protection shall be reviewed prior to final plat approval. S. Private walkways shall be provided to serve the multi -family unite 9. Utility easements shall be provided, as necessary to serve adjacent properties along Spear Street. 10. A 60 foot right of way shall be provided to connect with the right of way reserved in the previous Nowland subdivision to the north. This right of way may be reducad to a 20 foot pedestrian and utility easement if alternative access is provided to the land with no public road frontage in that previous subdivision. 11. Previously recorded agreements for the proposed future city street shall be revised in accordance with the new location as shown on this plat. 12. The final plat submission shall include the following data in addition to all normally required information: A. A traffic study containing existing and projected traffic volumes for Spear Street between Allen goad and Swift Street. b. Proposed phasing schedule. 13. Connections of all proposed public streets and utilities and driveways serTing single family lots shall be to existing public facilities or to streets and Utilities or which offers o e 1caiion the Uitp -Faye been reco e . { 6. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3. 1981 14. Lots.22, 23, and possibly 24 shall be dedicated to the city outright for a scenic overlook. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. EAir. Woolery was not sure #6.was needed, feeling that the proposal was plenty. In #5, the intention was to say that there should be a burro in the middle, 20' of pavement on each side and 3' shoulders on each outside edge. Mr. Jacob questioned 12b, which, before the motion was amended, read "Proposed building envelopes for all single family lots". He was told the envelopes were to protect the view of the lake, but he felt a lot of these lots would not have views anyway. It was suggested to ask for envelopes only in the Rl zone. Mr. Jacob also questioned 12c, which is the present 12b. Mr. Poger felt it was important to }mow the traffic impact of the development. The words "3D" were added to 12b before the amendment and -a proposal by Mr. Mona to replace all single family lots with lots 16-28 failed. Mr. Mona then moved to include lots 24, 25, and 26, Mr. Walsh -seconded, but Messrs. Levesque, Woolery, Ewing and Jacob voted no and the motion failed. Mr. Mona then moved to include lots 16-21, Mr. Walsh seconded, but again the vote was 4 nos, by Messrs. .Ewing, Woolery, Levesque, and Jacob. Mr. Levesque then moved to eliminate 12b. This motion was seconded by Mr. Jacob, and carried with Messrs. Poger, Levesque, Jacob, and Erring voting yes. Mr. Woolery did not want building envelopes on all lots. Mr. Mona opposed a development which would contain more multi -family units than single lots, even if the single lots had to be smaller to even the ratio. Mr. Poger disagreed, feeling the development moved nicely from Meadowood lots to multi -family units. He was not sure he could support that many units, but saw nothing wrong with the split. Mr. .Jacob asked the meaning of #r`13 and was told any utilities in Meadowood that this would connect to would have to be offered to the city. .The amended motion passed with Messrs. Jacob and Mona voting no. Mr. Jacob disagreed with many of the stipulations imposed and Mr. Mona did not feel that esthetics had been addressed enough here. Review annual and capital budgets Mr. Spitz went through his 1/23/81 memo on the budgets. Mr. Levesque asked which city streets'vere proposed for widening vs. the cost of a sidewalk on Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ewing felt that widening Williston Road at Gaynes was a more important = reject than some before it and he suggested. it be moved up. He felt there would be serious problems with traffic if it were not. widened until 1985.* Mr. Poger felt the Council had been derelict in putting off the addition of a single north -bound on ramp at Dorset.S.treet, Kennedy Drive, and I-89.._ Mr. Ewing did not agree that was more important that widening at Gaynes. Mr. Mona moved to _urge addition of the ramp, Mr. Jacob seconded, and all voted aye. .Mr. Jacob felt money should be in the budget for sidewalks. Mr. Poger did not know why sewers for Country Club Estates were in the ' budget and he called it a piece of fiction and said it made no sense. - Mr. Ewing wanted to remove Williston -Road widening at Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road and Air. Woolery agreed the city would not gain much with a 5th lane. Other business Meetinf wit#the fire c of w$ge proposed, and Mr. Spitz said the airport plans a nor h-sou runway. de nitely. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm. Clerk 5. JULY 14. 1951 r �r,.it , said :hnt .f any of the cLuz , land we developed re to be for it .I��v1 i bc, :rl.`.• ira Ie to have a combinedprcco3f.I r.nw, i•_- ..::: It >r.,,,11 t,,. •• i cv:_ _u; t::c Lack of the church land ir.,.e::e, •:1c ntly. lx;,_..;3e a concrete walkway through the develo-.mert. 'r• - •itz tElt there ::hould be a sidewalk on the Hinesburg Road frcnta-e :rcludi_: the ;ection in front of the Goodrich land. t:: 3t t;.i•; 3p plicant pad a sidewalk responsibility. ;.'r•'•r' aofelt agreed ` ?ona felt it :Should uE' ..r• oP; Q-;ite aide cf the raad. J- t• v .; dencity, vr. :;ci:sr_id t his was .addrecoed in section 6.302c ::e read 6.'^2 ` at t :_ c, soctions 1-4. It was noted •:e a; - _ican t had c_•.en 3i:ace on both z; ies of the units. They also do nct -` : ct to -.art of the .:edestrian s •stem s � :ere 4-4 ye :..ash .I Ecin�, ti:rcu h the property. �oc�: in e seaa-e treatment �lar•t to handle the development. =mmi int; felt that widening „ht be needed or. Hinesburg 3;,ad. felt the .urraity on the property was too high. 'r. Jacob wanted to look at the site. :'r • :,evesque saw no density problem with exitz on Her. nedy Drive and "inesburg : oad and with a sidewalk on Hinesburg ::oad. Mr. Ewing felt there were too many units, because part of the land i; un evelo gable. ''r. nocicry felt that if the buildinE the fire chief or:ent.:.i wrr)n,: were : horter.ed, that would natisfy him. He felt buildin(:3 were, ti.. t an' if they were broken up and reoriented, it might 4en.,e. he i d not have that .much faith in how well the underdrains w,�sld take the w :ter x'r aid he said that if they built to the maximum :i::d the drainage did not ,aorta, it would be bad for everyone. He felt Fvrhars the units could be cut down by 8 to 16. Mr. "ona preferred fewer. ..r. +foolery moved to continue t}e public hearin:- for creliminsry :13t q:, royal of 'hi..i �rco': :'ark until next week July 21 at 7:70 om at City Hall. Mr. i,ev,�zque seconded t e Wotion and all voted favora.-ly. lie lion bv(ii.gy i13c: L):• final ^1Lt ar--rov.Rl of a 134 unit sub divisio oI 55 s e- i�� l r and 7) •-ultl famil units r. spitz said =liai nary approval had been given on February 3, with 14 stipulaticns .attached. :'a;_•-e went tr.rou::h the stipulations to show the changes made since. ' into:r.—Cti.)n - of t-t ::ear :Street with Pheasnr.t fray is now about 250' .:treet and t:.� re i3 adequate -dist sigrt ance. This will also =r' L try_`:'ic from t:.•it utrese)t will impact only one lot on the Street. 's hf,:,:;-i%t 4ay h:,•;r been rr:duced to 7. ;i,,ht di.3tance was mear.ured aie --ste for spee3, between and 60 mph. Un Y4 " :.ercl:p"" .-w_• beer: eliminated and standard city . .-le .._ in. ., .-: `ut ;.-' col -de -sacs .:erta�.^led :.otiy to the rivate drJve in the muiti- -•••••1 ��-ection, and thi. :as been done. air. Page said the deve lo: era "--at the: dual .'_riveo constituted two access :ointa to the Wulti- ` :r. a�•e ;aw no _ roblem with has been • -•-t.• _ _ ; � �^l: done. The =e -- to t',.e dual drives. ;Y9 has been done, as has f 10. `1 +e -_3 ..-;� a_d ..,t -an to Co to the :•'eadcwood sewers. _ 1 c tc;; ::e:rage .�_ty ard.:o northand over UV:' property, ending C- Cr-:en :•'ou ntair. Drive. The interior ne of .e _ur:.--•,w.th storm drai.na,` i. street t"o. e the st right of way. - -'- -Jn to t e access to :hessant '.Yay, which the develocer is _-e zen`er of 3n ownership dispute, a 60' ri;-ht of w.a to �pPgr St. it 'n• -'r: :;:vc..;-cr fauls that ultimatF:ly there will be J access to huh:...:.:ut u.^.t.l t::at i:ap;:ena, the other access will bo provided. 6. -- -- --- JUI,Y 14 , 1r)f3l Th a:�:�:..:; i� .,.a w a� wide wi ' '� =� -4 � th a o� rir;ht of way. Mr, pilot said was t`,l`_ t ey have a.^, alternate access cn a city street cr street with an of:'.._ o: de,lication, and Pheasant :lay is neithe This .cano they cannot u,e it and .d the only other alternate is Spear Street. Till ey would re=o`ve the access if and when Pheasant Way can be used and will bend for that. :•:r. said a 1.7 acre site was shown for a city park. There are 19 lots in the H1 zone and there will be 134 units instead of t::e 130' 3ri.--irally pro; oze:. '''..lot wr:.� ;.:c , to the ' ublic _nark in a : rivate development �ecau3r. ;;ram felt it woul''_ be h r"! d. tc rolice and he id not want people e t ari^ :ere and dis.urbinE: the residents. . . i tct;;itrick, er..-_neer for the i;ro ject, said there was a culvert un:cr ;ear .:treet and that water gill be brought through this land. '=:.e d"sin-:,;e will 'Le ac'_e to handle full develo;ment across the street. She :culti-family :section will ave a ze;;arate System. The :unitary sewer will ::girt 4G:;' from ='heacant 'lay and go to Creen :fountain Drive. Crossing the U'+':: 1--nd has been di:;cu3ced, but the board of trustees must also discuss it and they wili not neet until fall. There is ample sewer capacity for ti:e ieve 1 o: eft . Z said he :a•.7r..:E-d with the fire chief that the dual drive wa3 not writ was meant by a second access. They feel it should be a totally di fercnt location and :"%(;uld be .ut in here unless there is a l;cod reason not to do so. He also d 4 not like the wroposed temporary access to :; near : tr eet, He did not like temporary. roads and he added that, if the other access never came to be, the temporary road mii-,ht not be in the best location for it. :e reco= ended tiat the project be approved in phases with the last phase to be the lots on :heasant 4ay and in that area. He sui:,,ested phnsi^C it over a 3 year period. If things worked out with 1'hea.3ant ',,lay, tze teal; or:iry access would not be f.ut in, and if they did not, t::.-it connection to the road would not be built. :-:r. Mona felt the nccens to the multi -family snits should be discussed. 13:lery liked t e d�isl '-rive idea and Xr. Ewing felt it met the ordinance. • . 70!!a -said it bo t::t: rc i is iy. ::r. Levesque said the plan was like htiving -ar ,streets into the area. re wondered if another access could come c' t::e back of the cul-de-sac, but Xr. Milot said that was a natural �!,--,r.:tion between the 2 develo gents and a lot of fill would have to be U t in to ;ut a connection in there. A lot of trees would be lost. fir. Jac,;:)felt the dual access was all right if it was the only way to do it. `::a question of .:Yea_ .street was then discussed. Xr. Milot said he refer t0 have the alternate access to gear street even if the r.„ect -hazed, for safety reasons. Xeasrs. :;ilot and :Mona aereed that l' '-7 cn theazant :,:,y, were in no-man's land until the controversy over :cet wa3 re,., ve; . ::r. .-ilot said he wanted to build the Pheasant ma; cc:_ vction to city Standards and date it so no one would use it. Xr. •301•_ry said that would leave only 4 cr ; lots without access and he saw no rE� ..)t to build that, ?'r. :'ona noted that most Commission members . r; e connection to :aens.ant Way. ::r. Levesque felt the tam orary road was a good safety solution and :r. •:w`n felt t e dove:c:;er h:; .icne ti.e best he coup. He felt it mi:rht .,a a little too -arrow for tie fire chief. ;foolery felt this solution w=s as ;3c•. ss t;:e city wris to get and he did not feel the temperary r..d to to :.;hilt unti: t.Avre were quite a r:um3er of houses in there. ze thought t:.e tem:orary access would have to be built in any case, because 7. DULY 14, 1981 I^ c;;arts Love very s'•owly. He saw no Problem with saying the temporary acce,zz would be built after a certain number of units were constructed. •.r • ..`acat srAd he would like to see s^We single fa-ily homes built before zero condomir.iu=s were and he added that the access should be left in place tv^^. if the :roject were phased, in case it were needed. . r. : ilot said he Planned to build the sin;, -le family units first. The str(.:et.3 in thRt section will be cor-.;tructed first. He said the temporary acce.3s could be added only after a certain nuWcer of units were built and at t::at :pint the decision on the second access could be made. He planned tc : u`, i:. all the roads this year and start w' t the single homes. if F. s<:r: et demand bFCl,me3 for c:;ndominiums, thcuCi:, he would like to start w.rE c,n tho::e. �i Tit now the demand is for �-• housEs. • -tan :`cKinley wa:3 a re ;:hbor and he felt the project would have a di-_ct adverse financial iWcact on his j.roierty, in that the sewer would run ce`ind his land. He was afraid excavation. for the sewer would kill the trees teiiind him and he waa not sure what would hap..en to drainage. Mr. ::flat said he had tried to meFt with :eadowood residents before sketch ;13n to address these quest;ons. ie said the sewer line could be Proved :s littia from the prcjerty (13-15" to 3nve the trees. Regarding drainage, = I.."Y would not crenate more water. They will pick up water normally and channel it, so he felt '•'r YcKin' y .might even see a reduction c= = il.,w acroj3 his lot. Xr. Fitzratrick said the sewer could be moved and he offered to walk the area with residents. Mr. Milot said ''Iey :anted to maintain flow in the sewers by gravity, and that w=1:_i -enn t hf:y could not :cove it too mucks. .:r. 03ick asked if the section of road connecting to Pheasant :Jay ae Guilt now. '.r. Xilot said that one alternate Was to assume that ,AIld never be offer•^d to the city, and to not build tL:e :.section, ;u .. _ ni: in a cul-de-sac in the area. -'• '.ewt3n asked about utilitit:3 an.,. has told they would be unaerground. :;. fat :e3 wondered if the :ubiic .z-,rk was iesirable. ter. 'Terris urE-;ed the develo:er to take every Possible measure to save trees. �r ::,With agreed about the L,ublic park. He felt it should be f;,r redid•: :3 of the area and should be :ic^tly controlled. Yr. :'ona felt the Cit7 Council srodld be asked for advice on tre park and its maintenance and PU1;Cin . :.r. I.colery moved to continue the final plat hearinr for the Yowlnnd i;='o :crty for 1 waekwJuly 21, at City Hall at 7.30 pm. Yx. Levesque seconded trd _ot_cn and all voted for it. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 =m. Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST I t . 1981 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August it, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Kirk Woolery, George Mona, James Ewing, Robert Walsh Members Absent Ernest Levesque, Peter Jacob Others Present David Spitz, Planner; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Robert Vinson, Douglas Schner, Eleanor Smith, Fred Smith, Mark Smith, Judy Hurd, William Schuele, Mark O'Reilly, J. McNamara, Lillian Terris, Milton Terris, Nancy ;McKinley, Stanley Wilbur, Sandra Patrick, Harold Brown, Ed Sanborn, Robert & Joan Hunt, Bart & Bill Hosick, Clara & Robert Ryan, Charles Smith, Robert Szczerbak, Donald Brisson, Ursula Beauvais, Margaret Ryan, Robert Krebs, Carl & Anna Lavallee, Robert Perry, Stephen Page, Gerald Milot, Douglas Fitzpatrick, Richard Trudell, Chuck Thweatt, David Martell, Mr. Goodrich Minutes of July 21. 1981 On page 3, in the paragraph beginning with "Mr. McKinley", it should be noted that Mr. Wilbur was not the forest management specialist. He is an engineer. Mr. Woolery moved to approve the July 21, 1981 minutes as corrected Mr. Walsh seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Ewing abstaining because he was not present. Continuation of warned public hearing on the final plat application by Ray Pecor for a 134 unit subdivision, consisting of 55 single-family and 79 multi -family units, on Spear Street Mr. Spitz said that drainage improvements had been submitted to and reviewed by the city engineer. They seem to meet his expectations. with regard to the UVM land, Mr. Larry Snyder of the university has told Mr. Spitz that they are agreed in concept but that the reviews have to be finalized. Mr. Spitz said that of the entire drainage area that goes downstream, this development covers 10%, and they will only increase drainage 10%, so he feels they cannot be asked to do more than put in the mention pond. Mr. Spitz said preliminary survey data and legal documents have been reviewed by the city attorney. Mr. Milot has submitted a letter dated 8/5/81 dealing with the proposed street situation. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he, as Mr. Milot's engineer, had met with the city engineer and area residents. They have agreed to install a curtain drain along the sewer line which will drain the land and channel the water into a swale which will eventually run through the UVM property. The city engineer feels this is fine. There will be less water running through there after this improvement than there is now. Mr. Hosick, a landowner in the area, said that the residents' engineer had asked to see the calculations which showed that water would be reduced. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could do it but it would take some time. For the 2. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11. 1981 record, he said the peak runoff rate would be lower. He went on to say that this development would only increase the water on Brigham Road by 1% and it is his opinion that the culvert in that area is undersized. Mr. Spitz said the problem existed now and that this developer was doing a lot to keep thedrainage low. He felt the developer had met his responsibilities. Mr. Poger said it might not be a large contribution to drainage, but that if the culvert was full, any additional drainage would hake it overflow. He felt the city had been remiss in not fixing it in the past. Messrs. Mona, Walsh, Woolery and Ewing did not want the applicant to have to fix the Brigham Road problem. Mr.Schuele felt someone had to defend the people in that area who would suffer from the increased drainage. Mr. Poger said that the Commission could require that it be fixed before the development went in, and the city and developer could fight about who would fix it, but the members did not agree with that. Mr. Page said he and SKr. Spitz had discussed building envelopes in the project and that they had been substantially increased throughout. Some of the envelopes are closer than 30' in the cul-de-sacs at the points of tangency. Mr. Spitz said he had noticed that on the cul-de-sac near Spear St. some of the setbacks were closer than what was acceptable to him. The front yards except on the cul-de-sacs were 30'. Some rear yards near the multi -family section are small, but there is a natural buffer in that area. Front yards on Pheasant Way are 30-35' and the setback from Spear St. is 75'. Mr. Hosick asked that the setbacks on Pheasant Way be increased to 50' for consistency with the other side of the road, but Mr. Milot wanted homeowners to have the maximum flexibility in siting their homes. Mr. Page noted that lots 1-4 and 7 were not usable without Pheasant Way access. The question of providing the drainage calculations was discussed. Mr. Milot suggested giving the calculations to the city engineer and the neighbors' engineer and if the neighbors'. engineer did not like the figures, he could discuss them with the city engineer, who will adjudicate any dispute. Mr. Milot asked whether, if the Pheasant Way public/private dispute was settled against the city, and he could make a deal with the street owner, the City would let him put in the road over to Pheasant Way. He was told that the city would not want him to do that. Mr. Vinson asked whether a traffic study had been done on the project. He was told that Mr -Spitz had looked at the counts for the street, and the standards, and he had felt that the result showed that it was so far from needing improvement that the figures had not been put on paper. Mr. Woolery felt those figures should be part of the record. Mr. Milot said they would give the city figures for the record. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final 1p at application Pecor for a_ 1 uni�lann"e�uuit_<Iey_eyQpment. on Spear Street as depicted on a 15 page set of plans entitled-"Nowland Property, A Planned 8esidential Develo ment"�85 ared�by Fitzpatrick- Llewellvn Associates with revisions_ through81 and a 1 page landscaping plan entitled "Nowland Property". prepared by Mt. Philo ASeadows, dated 6/17/81. subject to the following stipulations: —'-"-- -- 1. Street name's shall be submitted to and approved by the _City Planner prior to issuance of the first building permita T 2. All streets except street G and the southerly 170 feet of street A shal_l_be built_duri the initial -bases—of '-- __ ""__.�construction. _Prior_to issuance of a building permit for the 51st_dwelling unit, a second access to the t� 3. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1t. 1981 Project shall be provided. Said access shall consist of the balance of street A if public ownership of Pheasant Way has been secured, �or�street G if public ownership has_not been secured. 3. The agreement recorded in a previous Nowland subdivision to reserve 80 feet for a possible future street shall be replaced with a new agreement ht of indicating a 60 foot r19wad and 20 foot reservation at -are_____ _s_ed location and removing restrictions on previously reserved land no_x owned by Nowland and the UniYersity of Vermont. The new 20 foot wide reservation of land shall be marked on the plan to be recorded. 4. Bonding for all required public improvements - inol_u_din sewer and water mains, drainage facilities, roads, and if necessaryrT removal "of street _G_and construction of a permanent cul-de-sac at the southerlye-nd of street A -_shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. 5. A landscaping bond of $41,000 shall be provided prior to_issuance _o_f the first building permit. The bond shall _include_ $12.750 forpublic _street 330 pe_ plantings, 0r multi -family unit, and the balance to be distributed around the retention ponds or added to the multi -family area as approved bar the City Planner. _ --- -- 6. If the balance of the Nowland property to the -north is sold to the adjoining City and Stonehedge property owners, -then the 60 foot conditional easement shall be removed and replaced by a 20 foot pedestrian easement. 7. Several additional sewer and drainage easements over facilities shall be provided to the city as required by the c sed r. 8. All construction procedures shall comply with the requirements of Citr Engineer William Szymanski's_memo_dated July 9 1981. 9. Building envelopo for all lots shall be as indicated on the final plat. Front yards for all R1 lots shall be a minimum of 30'. 10. One additional multi -family garage shall be added to bring the total to 79, or 1 per unit. It is suggested that several garages be relocated to correspond with the relocated dwelling units. i------ �+- 11. All survey data _for internal lots and roads and allrequired legal documents shall be submitted to and approved IjtheLcit�r-prio_r`to issuance of the first building permit. 12. The balance of the Nowland property near the northeast corner of the development shall not constitute a separate building lot. Development or further subdivisionn OT_fEL Tand- s�alr r uire_a roval-ti r`the PlaiiriinL Commission. - — 13. The final plat, incorporating all_changes_required _from stipulations 6, 7, 9, 10, and _11,Yshall ybe recorded_ within-9-6- days. 14. This approval expires 3 years from this date. 15. The scenic overlook shall be as indicated on the final plat__ 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1t, 1981 16. Traffic data, including existing volumes _of traffic ._on..Spear St. - and anticipated volumes of traffic from this development,_shall be provided with the final plat. 17. Drainage calculations, supporting equal or lesser volumes of runoff than currently exists in the southerly swale alon.Mr. Hosick's_property shall be submitted to and approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of the first building permit_. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Mona opposed the wording in stipulation 17. He also did not feel that this PUD fully maintained the esthetics of the 600' of R1 acreage. He noted that one acre lots only were permitted in the R1 zone and he felt this would change the way things look in that area. He was also concerned about the single access to the 79 multi -family units. The motion passed with Mr. Mona voting no for the above reasons. Continuation of warned public hearing on the preliminary plat application by Robert Ryan et al for a 72 unit subdivision, entitled Winding Brook, on Hinesburg Road Mr. Spitz said the number of units had been reduced from 84 to 72 and that 72 enclosed parking spaces were now shown. There is a total of 172 parking spaces. The street is 24' wide, with 2' paved shoulders in areas without parking on the sides of the street. Mr. Mona felt the development had a long stretch where cars would be parking on both sides of the street and a driver would have to watch for backing cars. He also noted that the street was pretty straight, which would lead to higher speeds. Mr. Krebs noted that there was an island in the middle, which would slow cars down. Messrs. Ewing and Poger felt curves in the road might help and Mr. Krebs suggested that the Commission bend on building setbacks from the property line, in order to give the developer more room to work with in getting some curves in. Mr. Spitz said that if the present loop in the pedestrian trail in that area is not continued after the buildings go in, there will be more room to move the buildings. Mr. Ewing suggested putting some of the parking lots between the buildings. Mr. Krebs mentioned taking out 30 of the parking spaces or putting landscaped islands in the parking lots. Mr. Woolery mentioned rotating some of the buildings ( perhaps 6&7) 900. Mr. Spitz said he would check to be sure the documents were in place for this development to gain access to Kennedy Drive. Mr. Woolery suggested breaking the 28 garage building into 2 pieces. Mr. Spitz said the sidewalk would be put in with a payback provision, on the opposite side of the road, and across the area owned by Goodrich. Mr. Krebs said the Church of God could have access from this new road across the corner of their property. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application by Robert Ryan et al for a 72 unit multi- family development on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive as depicted nn a plan entitled "Site Plan, Winding Brook ", prepared by Krebs _& Lansing Consulting Engineers last revised August 4-, 1981,_subject to the following stipulations: 1. R_e.quirements for drainage improvements in the vicinity of the existing___ Church of God driveways shall be reviewed during -the final -plat -stage. If necessary, the existing driveway shall be relocated. ►uut4'Burlington -fire JIr+jurtment 575 Dorset street �*auth +'urlinatun. Perinont 03-1111 ]FFiCE CF JAMES'N. •30CCET'=. _- CHIEF d63-6455 June 30,1981 Mr. Sidney Poger Chairmen South Burlington City Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Poger, 0n Monday June 29,1981 plans were reviewed by this office on the Nowland Property site plan marked June 230981. The following must be corrected if we are to give proper fire protection; A. Main entrance to the multi —family units is not adequate for the size of the development. There must be two (2) and at diffrent locations. B. There is 4 units to farfrom-.the road way and would be impossible to protect , if our equipment can not be used. By State code all buildings must have proper fire lanes for our equipment around buildings. ( Section 11 ). If you ahve any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely ames W. Goddette Sr. Chief 1 f M E M O R A N D U M - - - - - - - - - - To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 1/6/84 1) O'Brien -Business Park North, Lot #8 The report from North Country Planning (David Spitz) was reviewed by Dr. Oppenlander, a copy of his findings are enclosed. The report does not place much detail on the 2800 square foot office complex. The use will be general office area with real estate occupancy in part of the building. General office buildings generate 12.3 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1000'g.s.f. of building area and 3.59 average weekday vehicle trip ends per employer. Office building - generated trips peak at the same time as adjacent street traffic (7 to 9 A.M. and 4 to 6 P.M.) The applicants attorney represented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on October 17, 1983 a willingness to provide access to Kimball Avenue. I strongly suggest that a second access be considered by the Planning Commission. r This office agrees with Attorney Schmucker that the use is grandfathered under the original P.C.D. development of Business Park Noth approval May 23, 1978. At that time traffic data submitted by Bruce Houghton projected around 20 average weekday vehicle trip ends for lot #8. Other than the Palmer office complex none of the other lots are developed however, I understand some have been sold. It has been suggested that if and when other lots are developed the Planning Commission could require access off Kimball Avenue to lot #8, I suggest by that time it will be to late. 2) Homer and Marie Dubois% Hinesburg Road Enclosed is Dr. Oppenlander's review of the traffic report submitted by Trudell Engineering. The major issue would be the installation of a three-phase signal control with left turn movement from Hinesburg Road on a separate phase. A section of the subdivision regulations provides that not more than 50 units be served by a cul-de-sac or a common single access to a major or secondary street. This proposal does not conform to that provision, 57 units are pro- posed. After discussing this with the City Engineer and the fact that this is a five (5) year project I suggest that the street layout is acceptable providing the following conditions are satisfied. 1) that phase IT of this project not be submitted until connector street are completed to the Goodrich property. 2) that a second access be provided to Van Sicklen Road. 3) that Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive. The recreation fee should be paid according to the phasing schedule, the total fee being $11,400, prior to issuing any permits the fee would be $200 per unit. This 3. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1984 interconnecting access for lot /,,�7, as now or subsequently required by the South Burlington Planning Commission, for ultimate access to Kimball Avenue, to occur and coordinate with site -plan review for lot ,k7. 3. That those c� openin'a and driveway (memo 1/6/84) be included in the site plan and_submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of a permit. 4. That if the size of the bank facility chan.es it shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. 5. There shall be signs which mark the internal traffic flow direction. 6. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated on the plan of record. 7. This approval expires 6 months from this date. Mr. Belter seconded the motion and all voted aye. Coontinu hearing on preliminary plat application, 57 lot subdivis K . Homer Dubois. Hinesbure Road Mr. Ward noted that the regulations only allowed 50 units if there were just one access point. The applicants were told that requirement would restrict development on the back portion of the land unless a second access were found. Mr. Trudell, representing the developer, said that adjoining property owner Art `i'outant had t d them about a drainage problem at the last meeting. He went and looked at it t next day and has taken care of it. The problem seems to be mainly on Mr. Tou ant's land and drainage will run the way it does now on the property in question. Mr. Ward noted that the City Manager had wanted to give a sewer allocation for the first 27 units of the project, feeling that by the time those units are complete, the sewer plant will have been upgraded. The Commission felt the allocation should be given for the entire 57 units, in case the upgrade does not occur. It was noted that they usually did give an allocation for the entire project. Mr. ;yard noted that the level of service at the Kennedy -Hinesburg inter- section would not change as a result of this project and the Commission did not feel the developer should be required to do anything to that intersection. Lowering the speed limit in that area was discussed. '�'r. Jacoc :ut-cested that that be investi-ated main. :'?r. Jacob moved that the ;South burlirtCton Plannin - Commission a;)urove the preliminary plat application of Homer and Marie Dubois for a 57 unit, sini7le family development as depicted on a plat entitled "Ledge Knoll Subdivision" prepared by Trudell Consultin Engineers, Inc. dated November 16 1983 with revisions dated 12130 8S subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the legal documents, includ n� public street easements, utility easements easer!ients serving; adjoininE, ;.ror)erties etc be submitted for approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat ap;,iication 2. That the sewer allocation be 19,950 gpd in acccrdance with the sewer policy developed by the Planning Commission. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1984 3. That the project is approved based on the following phasing schedule: Phase I - 15 lots 1984-85 Phase II - 12 lots (1985-86) Phase III - 18 lots (1986-87) Phase IV - 12 lots (1987-89) This schedule is not subject to change without Planning Commission approval. 4. Those concerns of the City Engineer (memo 1/6/84) be addressed prior to submission of final plat application. 5. That screening along the Toutant property line be agreed upon by the City Planner and the developer and be included in the final plat application. 6. That Project II (condominium project) of this project be submitted with a connector street to the Goodrich property. that a second southerly access be provided, and that Highland Terrace be extended. Mrs. Maier seconded the motion. Mr. Trudell asked about the second southerly access and was told that the project should eventually have access to Van Sicklen Road, or at least a second way to get in and out. This developer needs to leave a right of way open for another access point. Mr. Ward also felt Highland Terrace should be extended now. If there is a major accident on Hinesburg Road at the entrance to these lots, there would be no way to get in. The Commission agreed it should be extended now, and Mr. ward felt the extension could be to the same r standards the Terrace was now. It should be accessible year-round. The Commission said the Highland Terrace residents should be informed of the planned extension. 'v?r. Trudell mentioned a cedar hedge as the screening in �5, but Mr. Ward felt scotch pines might survive better and grow faster. This will be checked. The motion passed with all in favor. Continue public hearing on Bourdeau-Rye property, 28 unit planned unit develop- ment, Mr. Gerald Milot and Mr. Daniel J. O'Brien Mr. Ward said the only issue left was the building placement. At the last meeting the Commission had requested that the Fire Chief address them about his concerns. Mr. Milot said that the question of the design of the project had come up during sketch plan and preliminary plat hearings and the Commission had felt the design was adequate. The minutes of this meetinC were read. At the final plat staEe the Chief sent a letter sayin;; he could not fight fires in the project. ::r. lilot said Ir. Pitzpatrick had gone to speak :-Iith the Chief, proposinL. that streets near buildings be widened to 3U' so two trucks could pass. An additional fire hydrant can also be added. The roads are now 24' wide. ,Mr. Goddette said his main concern was how to �;et around equipment that was already parked in order to fight fires and protect exposures. He noted that he had a tru�k�•that was only 8' wide, but had 12' stabilizers, so when that is on the scene, another truck cannot get around it. de said there were usually cars parked on the side of the road, and durin` the winter he lost space due to snow storaUe. Tars. Maher felt the Chief' was concerned with the safety of the people who would be living in these units and she felt he and the developer should m,_et again to see if they could come to a compromise. PLANNING COMMISSION 26 October 1993 page 3 Mr. Sheahan said he would like to see a condition that vehicles are parked only on paved areas, not on the grass or in the access area. Mrs. Maher asked if the abondoned pool is fenced in. Mr. Weith said it is. Mr. Roberts showed the area rented by Pete's RV. Mr. Craig was concerned that the Commission was being asked to approve a plan that didn't show landscaping, dumpster location, lighting, etc. Other members agreed they wanted to review a complete plan. Mr. Craig moved that the apgjication be continued until the next meeting when there is a lan showing all the issues raised b the Commission. Mr. Teeson seconded. Motion asked 5-1 with Mr. Austin opposiW�n� Mr. Weith said the question of a sidewalk will also need to be addressed. 5. Sketch Plan application of Homer & Marie Dubois for subdi- vision of 32.89 acres of land into 68 single family lots, loca- ted off Hinesburg Rd. behind the Ledgeknoll residential sub- division: Mrs. Maher said the Commission was told in 1984 that there be condos very close together with more open space. Mr. Cobb acknowledged this was true. Mr. Weith explained the density issues. The first is the maximum allowable density and the land taken into account to calculate density. The second is the Airport approach cone. The final issue is a provision which limits the number of units served by a cul de sac (50). Regarding density: Mr. Weith said he met with the City Attorney who felt that the entire 85 acre parcel density should be de- termined by today's maximum allowable density. This results in a total of 94 units, 57 of which are already developed leaving a maximum of 37 additional units that could be built. Regarding the Airport approach cone, Mr Weith said that Sect. 19.453 identifies the area of the approach cone. No developed units can be built in this area. The plan presented shows almost all units to be built in this area. Regarding the 50 unit maximum served by a cul de sac, Mr Weith noted that there are already 51 units on the one access. PLANNING COMMISSION 26 October 1993 page 4 Mr. Hart responded to Mr. Weith's comments. He said the plan had originally been generated based on 2 per acre. It has been changed to 1.1. Mr. Cobb said they didn't want to do the plan half on 1984 zoning and half on 1993 zoning. Mr. Austin recom- mended the applicant get an opinion from their attorney to ad- dress the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Burgess added if the applicant feels there is a legal reason to question the City Attorney's opinion, the Commission will listen to it. Regarding the approach cone, Mr. Hart said they checked the Airport map which shows the line is 300 ft. south of the Dubois line. They feel they are not in the cone because of elevations. They feel the approach cone is in the air and the development is on the ground and doesn't penetrate the cone. Mr. Burgess said that argument can easily be handled by consulting the Air- port people. Mr Weith noted this is not staff's interpretation of the approach cone. Mr. Schaal asked if the project violates the agricultural cor- ridor. Mr. Cobb said it does not. Mr. Finnigan noted the shifting of the water table and the fact that trees are dying in the 4-r-they are talking of developing. He felt this should be checked for impact. Mr. Schaal agreed adding that the entire area is wet all the time. It is very near Muddy Brook, and he asked to know the impact of any future de- velopment on the brook. Mr. Craig recalled the city's firmness on the second access issue and that the access had to be built before more than 50 units were allowed in the earlier development. He felt that would be a very major issue. 6. Revised site plan application of Randall G. Munson dba South Burlington Realty for multiple use approval of an existing 14,720 sq. ft. building, 1860 Williston Rd: Mr. Jaeger said they want to avoid having to come in with each proposed use and thus want a range of criteria to function with. At present they are talking with a martial arts use, a travel agency and a computer business. Mr. Burgess questioned the list of uses as there was no data on traffic impact. Mr. Weith noted that in the original approval traffic ceilings were set out. He also noted in the 10 Farrell St. approval the Commission said any change in use has to be ap- proved by the City Planner. There have been no problems as yet, Mr. Weith said. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 APRIL 1996 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 23 April 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members present: William Burgess, Chair; David Austin, Mark Crow, Gayle Barone, Marcel Beaudin Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; Carl Cobb, Tyler Hart, Don Miner, Phyllis Poe, Sandra Valenta, Heinz Valenta, Christine Feed, Jim Ewing, Mark Sperry, Peter Cole, John Finnegan, John Wood, John Larkin, Greg Rabideau, Hal Bensen, Richard Spokes, Laurie Sullivan, Dennis Blodgett, Norman Clark, Brian Sullivan, Jim Wood, Dick Kwan 1. Other Business: Mr. Weith said there would be an additional item on the agenda: a review of a proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan to add a map showing community facilities. 2. Review Minutes of 26 March and 9 April: Mr. Austin moved to approve the Minutes of 26 March as written. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed 2-0 with Ms. Barone and Messrs. Crow and Beaudin abstaining. It was noted that in the Minutes of 9 April, it should be indicated that Messrs. Burgess, Crow and Austin stepped down during the hearing of the Irish application. Also, on p. 5, third from the last paragraph, it was Mr. Sheahan, not Mr. Burgess who spoke. Mr. Austin moved to approve the Minutes of 9 April as amended. Mr. Crow seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Beaudin abstaining. 3. Sketch plan application of Homer & Marie Dubois to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots, Dubois Drive: Mr. Hart identified the project as Ledge Knoll, on the vacant land to the east of the property. He said there will be only 40 lots, not 42, and that each would be 12,000 sq. ft. They have taken into account the location of the Airport approach cone, and all proposed lots are located outside of it. Mr. Hart said that density calculations would allow 46 additional units. The total allowable for the property would be 103. With the development, there would be 97. On the question of the second access, the applicant felt that the Hinesburg Rd. and Highland Terrace accesses should serve for the total number of units. They will provide a right-of- PLANNING COMMISSION 23 APRIL 1996 PAGE 2 way access to the land to the east. Mr. Austin asked the applicant to describe Highland Ten. Mr. Hart showed it on the plan. Mr. Austin said he did not see how that road could be considered a second access. Mr. Cobb said they would have had a potential third access to the Green Acres property, but the city effectively cut that off when it didn't require it of the Green Acres development. Mr. Austin felt the proposed 40 units don't have a second access. He said that Highland Terrace allowed the building of 7 additional units which brought the existing total to 57 units. Mr. Cobb said that Stonehedge and Dorset Park don't have second accesses and have more than 50 units. He added that Mr. Dubois has had to build accesses on other people's land at his expense while other developers haven't had to meet the 2 access standard. Mr. Austin repeated his conviction that Highland Terrace is not a second access to the proposed 40 units. Mr. Austin also noted that the applicant will have to show what they will do to protect the wetland since they will be infringing on the buffer zone. Regarding the Rec Path, Mr. Weith said the Rec Path Committee hasn't had a chance to review the revised plan. Mr. Miner said it would be helpful to have access to Muddy Brook from this new development area. Ms. Feed said her backyard is very wet and she had a concern about the wetland. She noted this land is wet most of the year. She also felt it was ludicrous to consider Highland Terrace a road. Mr. Burgess said the Commission will go by the legal definition of a wetland. Ms. Poe was very concerned about traffic, noting there are many children in the area and the sidewalk is only on one side of the street. People coming down the hill can't see children playing. She felt Highland Terrace cannot address that concern. Ms. Valenta said she has a home occupation and notices traffic all day long. She felt the entrance is not feasible and is dangerous. Mr. Millette said he agreed with other neighbors about the dangerous traffic conditions. He felt something has to be done on Hinesburg Rd. He said that asking people to exit at Highland Terrace is asking them to kill themselves. Mr. Valenta noted that the single accesses to Stonehedge and Village at Dorset Park are not lined with houses. Dubois Drive is. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 APRIL 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Ewing said that the requirement for a second access for more than 50 units was for safety purposes. There would be 92 units on one access here, and Mr. Ewing felt that was not safe. Mr. Finnegan said that to the right of his house is the town sewer system. People who check it say that any change in the water system could upset the system and flood his house. Mr. Cole said he concurs with most of the concerns expressed. He felt the area was all very fragile land because of the wetness. Ms. Finnegan said she was concerned with the burden on the schools and noted people are struggling to pay taxes. Mr. Wood felt that construction vehicles shouldn't be allowed on Dubois Drive for safety reasons. He noted the deplorable condition of the existing Knoll Circle and Dubois Drive. There are crumbling curbs and sub -standard streets that the city has to maintain constantly. Mr. Finnegan added that the road "caves in." Mr. Burgess said that the developer will be required to build streets to city standards. Mr. Weith added that he would get comments from Mr. Audette on the roads. Mr. Sperry asked if there is anything proposed with access on Knoll Circle that would have gone into Green Acres. Mr. Burgess said there is not. Mr. Burgess then reviewed the issues raised at this hearing, including: the second access, buildable areas, building in the CO Zone, and details of the pedestrian easement. 4. Public Hearing: Review final plat application of John Larkin to amend an approved planned residential development consisting of 120 multi -family units and 37 single family units, Bay Crest Road. The amendment consists of minor revisions to the layout of 5 duplex buildings on 1.5 acres of land (i.e., "Cluster C"): Mr. Rabideau said there will be 10 dwelling units, upscale in nature. They will modify the footprints of buildings 1, 3, 4, and 5 as individual buyers are asking for specific changes. The units have 2 indoor parking spaces. The road and utilities don't change. Mr. Weith said the Fire Chief is satisfied with the distance between units. Mr. Weith suggested identifying a building envelope that units would fit within and then specific changes that remain within that envelope would not have to come back to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 AUGUST 1996 PAGE 2 4. Review Minutes of 23 July 1996: Mr. Beaudin moved that the Minutes of 23 July be approved as written. Mr. Crow seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public hearing: Final Plat Application of Bob and Sally Torney to convert a 4-unit residential multi -family dwelling into a 5 unit multi -family dwelling, 14 Cottage Grove: Mr. Ward said the 5th unit was added by the prior owner without approval. The Zoning Board gave approval for it. There are no modifications being made to the existing site. Mr. Dinklage asked how it happened that the unit was added without approval and how this can be prevented from happening again. Mr. Weith said the Assessing Department was aware of it, but the Planning Dept. was not. He was not sure there is communication between the two departments. Mr. Dinklage suggested establishing a policy so this does not happen again. The other members agreed. Mr. Crow moved that the Planning Commission approve the final Plat application of Bob and Sally Torney to convert a 4-unit res- idential multi -family dwelling into a five unit multi -family dwelling 14 Cottage Grove as depicted on a plan entitled "Pro- erty Plan Robert & Sally Torney, So. Burlington, VT," prepared by _Webster -Martin, Inc dated October. 1978, with a stamped "received" date of Jun 3 1996, with the following stipulations: ious approvals and stipulations wnicn are nor super- seded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2 The Commission grants a sewer allocation of 150 gpd for the additional dwelling unit The applicant shall pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. 3 Any change to the plat shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. 4 The final plat plan shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chair or Clerk prior to re- cording. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Preliminary Plat application of Homer & Marie Dubois to sub- divide a 32.89 acre parcel of land into 40 single family lots, Dubois Drive. This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll: PLANNING COMMISSION 13 AUGUST 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Hart showed the location on the plat. The residences are proposed to be laid out in a loop arrangement. There will be a hook -on to municipal water and sewer. They will avoid_ the Class 2 wetland and the 50 ft. buffer strip, except for the road crossing. A preliminary traffic study has been done. The general conclusions are: the need for a left turn lane, a 4-way intersection with Butler Farms. They will relocate a 60 ft. right of way to the area of lot #72. The location of the pedestrian trail needs to be finalized. There is a view protection zone. Houses in this area will be a maximum of 30 ft. in height. Mr. Dinklage raised the issue of the need for a second access for more than a total of 50 homes. Mr. Hart said they propose to put an island in the middle of the access road and count that as a second access. Mr. Weith said the intention of the regulation is that no more than 50 units are to be served by only one access. Everything east of Highland Terrace would be served by one access point in the proposed plan. Mr. Fead said the Commission should be aware that the proposed impact of relieving the traffic impact on Dubois Drive would actually have a disastrous effect on Dubois Drive as it would turn that road into a shortcut. He said the city plan for this area anticipates no through street, and Dubois Drive was never intended for this use. He felt the application should be denied because it does not comply with the city plan. Mr. Dinklage asked what the official city map shows for through streets. Mr. Weith said the map doesn't show any through streets; however, the plan clearly encourages connections through developments. A discussion followed on the philosophy of connection through an industrial zone to a residential zone. Mr. Beaudin said he didn't oppose this as long as it is clear it is not intended as a short cut for industrial traffic through a residential zone. Mr. Burgess said the question the Commission has to answer is whether what is proposed by the applicant satisfies the second access requirement. Mr. Cobb showed where the 60 ft. right of way was left to Green PLANNING COMMISSION 13 AUGUST 1996 PAGE 4 Acres. The Planning Commission then did not require a similar dedication by Green Acres, so it effectively cut off a possible second access. He said the Highland Terrace access was built to satisfy the second access. Mr. Burgess explained that the Highland Terrace access only satisfied the second access for the few homes that were built to bring the total to 57, not for another 50 homes. Members unanimously rejected the applicant's notion of a second access. Mr. DinklaQe moved to continue the application until 10 September in order to formulate a motion of denial based on the lack of a second access for more than 50 units. Mr. Beaudin seconded. Mr. Schaal asked if the applicant needs an Act 250 permit before the Planning Commission approval. Mr. Burgess said they do not. Mr. Schaal then asked if the Commission was sympathetic with neighbors not wanting a thru street in the neighborhood. Mr. Burgess said the Commission would ask for traffic data before making any decision. Mr. Burgess then reviewed other potential issues: • development in a restricted area . Section 3.50/a street in a CO Zone/the need for a wetlands expert to address criteria . lot frontage problems • rec path/pedestrian trail . data on view protection zone/height data . evidence that wetlands were delineated by a wetlands expert . traffic study to address safety issues at Dubois Dr/ Hinesburg Road. Mr. Hood noted other issues raised at a previous hearing: . sidewalks on the southern portion of Dubois Drive • infrastructure of Dubois Drive, upgrading to handle additional traffic. The motion then passed unanimously. 7. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of Gary Farrell - Sheraton Inn to amend a planned unit development consisting of a 309 room hotel/conference center, Sheraton Inn, 870 Williston Road. The amendment consists of 1) constructing a new drop-off canopy, 2) enclosing existing canopy for shops and 3) site modifications: PLANNING COMMISSION 10 September 1996 page 3 lane to the Williston Road driveway, 801 Williston Road: Charles Johnson, representing his parents who are neighbors of the project, said his parents believe the proposed project will affect them adversely. Mr. Dinklage then moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Teeson seconded Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved the Planning Commission deny the Applicant's request for approval to amend a previously approved site plan to raze a bank building and construct a 900 sq. ft. convenience_ store with gas sales, deli, ATM machine and a 1280 sq. ft. canopy at 801 Williston Road for the following reasons: 1. The application does_ not comply with or satisfy the requirements of Article XXI, Traffic Overlay District of the zoning regulations The proposed use will generate 79 vte's which is 49.3 vte's or 166% more vte's than permitted. 2 The project as designed will result in unsafe traffic access conditions by not providing a safe and adequate means for right - turn exiting movements due to the close proximity of the _exit lane curb cut to an adjacent curb cut serving a service station. ire- oro- posal is for two driveways and only one driveway per lot is allowed_ 4 The application does not comply with or satisfy the require- ments of Section 26 103(b) of the zoninq regulations. The proposal is for a 66 foot wide driveway on Williston Road and 36 feet is the maximum width allowed. Ms Barone seconded the motion which was then passed unanimously. The Chair declared the application to be denied. 4. Continued Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat application of Homer and Marie Dubois to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel into 40 single family lots, Dubois Drive. This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll: Mr. Hart said they are still going for 40 lots. They have done a full traffic study and have provided a wetlands report. Mr. Burgess asked the applicant to address the second access issue. Mr. Hart said they believe the Highland Terrace access serves as a second access. PLANNING COMMISSION 10 September 1996 page 4 Mr. Weith said that Highland Terrace serves as a second access to 6 or 7 units which allowed the development to go to 57 units at that time. Mr. Hart said the Commission had approved 2 other developments with similar situation. Mr. Weith responded that the difference in those cases was that a median provided two separate access points. Mr. Dinklage moved to close the public hearing. Ms Barone seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. O'Rourke moved the Planning Commissiion deny the Applicant's request to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel of land into 42 lots (two open space lots and 40 single family lots), Dubois Drive This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll. The reasons for denial are as fnl1nwc- 1. The application does not comply with or satisfy the require- ments of Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations. The proposal would add 40 dwelling units to a system of streets which share a common single access and which currently provide access to 52 dwelling units. This would result in a total of 92 dwelling units being served by a system of streets which share a common single access. 2. The application does not comply with or satisfy the reauire- ments of Section 26.151(f) of the zoning regulations and Section 417(f) of the subdivision regulations. The failure to provide at least two points of access to serve 92 dwelling units could cause an unreasonable burden on the City to provide adeauate emergency service. Ms. Barone seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Chair declared the appication to be denied. 5. Public Hearing; Revised final plat application of John Larkin, Inc., to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 120 multi -family units and 37 single family units. The amendment consists of 1) adding one additional single family dwelling lot on Keari Lane, and 2) reducing the number of multi -family units in "Cluster C" on Bay Crest Roaad by 2 units: Mr. Rabideau showed the location of the proposed home. The applicant is asking to allow the 30 ft. perimeter setback to continue for this lot. They have staked it out and feel a very nice home could be built there. It is adjacent to the park land. The applicant agreed to a notice of condition regarding the CO Zone. Memorandum - Planning October 26, 1993 agenda items October 22, 1993 Page 3 Parking: The existing and proposed uses require a total of 10 parking spaces, including one (1) handicapped space. The plan shows six (6) spaces in the paved area and a gravel parking area large enough for six ( 6 ) spaces for a total of 12 spaces available. The plan should be revised to show one (1) handicapped space. Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which would allow this property to generate 138 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. The existing uses are estimated to generate 2.8 vte's and the proposed use to generate 6 vte's for a total of 8.8 vte's. The applicant will be required to contribute $866 to the Williston Road Traffic Improvement Fund - Area #2 based on six (6) additional P.M. peak hour trip ends to be generated. Sewer: The additional sewer allocation needed for this project is 15 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Dumpster: All dumpsters should be shown on the plan and should be adequately screened. Lighting: Plan should show any existing or proposed exterior lighting. Lighting details should be submitted. 5) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 68 UNIT PRD - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 68 lots. This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84 (minutes enclosed). This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north and east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. Airport Approach Cone: All but 10 lots Airport Approach Cone. Section 19.453 states that within the approach cone permitted other than the residence of a security personnel". 3 will be located within the of the zoning regulations "no dwellings shall be caretaker, proprietor or Memorandum - Planning October 26, 1993 agenda items October 22, 1993 Page 4 Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 94 units for development (1.1 x 86). Since 57 units are already developed, only 37 units are left available for development. Due to the constraints of the Airport Approach Cone, any development would have to take place south of the approach cone. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul- de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 50 dwelling units and this extension would add 68 more units for a total of 118 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul-de-sac to 50 units. Non -buildable area: All or portions of 36 lots are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the Southeast Quadrant zoning map. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 16.606 of the zoning regulations. The restricted area consists of a wetland and a C.O. zone along a stream running north -south along the easterly boundary. Since this project is also a Planned Residential Development, the applicant must also address the criteria in Section 19.15 of the zoning regulations. The applicant should address these criteria in a report submitted to the Planning Commission at preliminary plat. C.O.zone: Lots 29, 42 and 47 lie almost entirely within a C.O. zone and can not be developed. Recreation Path: The Official Map shows a proposed recreation path running east - west along the project's southerly boundary. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed these plans and submitted their recommendations (see enclosed memo). 6) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY - MULTIPLE USES - SITE PLAN The applicant is requesting to use an existing 14,720 square foot building for any of the permitted and conditional uses listed below. This request is being made with the provision that all the uses would not require more than 49 parking spaces, would not generate more than 360 gpd in sewer demand and would not generate more than 155 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. 4 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 11 The existing bank building does not meet the front yard setback requirement and is therefore a noncomplying structure subject to the limitations of Section 26.002 of the zoning regulations. Parking: Not affected. Dumpster: The dumpster storage area will be screened. 8) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT PRD - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots. This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84. A sketch plan for the subdivision of this property into 68 lots was reviewed on 10/26/93 (minutes enclosed). This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north and east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul- de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 50 dwelling units and this extension would add 42 more units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul-de-sac to 50 units. The applicant is reserving a 60 r.o.w. for possible future connection to development on the adjacent property to the east. Staff suggests that a r.o.w. be reserved to the south between lots #6 and 7 or in the vicinity of lot #3. Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 103 units for development (1.2 x 86). Since 57 units are already developed, 46 units would be available for development. The applicant is proposing 42 lots. Non -buildable area: Portions of lots 10-13, 20, 21, 35-39 and 42 are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. For preliminary plat review, applicant should 11 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 12 delineate all wetlands on the property, in particular, to show that lots #35-39 and portions of lots #21 and 29 are not in a wetland area. The limits of the wetland on the 20 acre open space lot should also be delineated. Applicant should also verify that there is not a stream and associated C.O. District along the easterly boundary. C.O. Zone: Portions of lots #36-38 which are located within a CO zone can not be developed unless the requirements of Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations are met. Applicant should explain purpose of C.O. District shown on the plan and submit a written report addressing Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations. Lot size/frontage: The minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet. It appears that all lots will meet this minimum requirement. The minimum frontage requirement is 85 feet. It appears that all lots, with one (1) exception, will meet this requirement. Lot #42 does not meet the frontage requirement on the "loop" road. Incorporating the proposed 60 foot r.o.w. to this lot would appear to solve this problem. Recreation Path/pedestrian trail: The Official Map shows a proposed recreation path running east - west along the project's southerly boundary. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed this plan and submitted their recommendations (see enclosed memo). Staff suggests the applicant provide a 20 foot pedestrian easement to access the open space to the north. Other: --- plan should indicate that the northerly boundary is the boundary between the IO District to the north and the SEQ District to the south. --- the correct name of Highland Drive is Highland Terrace. --- the stormwater retention lots and the open space lot should have some type of designation (e.g., common area "A" etc.). 12 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, South Burlington City Planner Re: April 23, 1996 agenda items Date: April 19, 1996 3) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT SUBDIVISION - SKETCH PLAN This item was continued from the March 12, 1996 meeting. This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots. This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84. A sketch plan for the subdivision of this property into 68 lots was reviewed on 10/26/93 (minutes enclosed). This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north and east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul- de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 50 dwelling units and this extension would add 42 more units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul-de-sac to 50 units. A second access should be provided. The applicant should reserve a 60 r.o.w. for possible future connection to development on the adjacent property to the east. Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 103 units for development (1.2 x 86). Since 57 units are already developed, a maximum of 46 units would be available for development. The applicant is proposing 42 lots. Non -buildable area: It appears that portions of lots 6-11, 13-16 and 32-33 are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. The sketch plan should show the non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. 1 Memorandum - Planning April 23, 1996 agenda items April 19, 1996 Page 2 C.O. Zone: A portion of the proposed street is located within a CO zone which can not be developed unless the requirements of Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations are met. Applicant should submit a written report addressing the criteria in Section 3.503(a) - (e) of the zoning regulations. Lot size/frontage: The minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet. It appears that all lots will meet this minimum requirement. The minimum frontage requirement is 85 feet. It appears that all lots will meet this requirement. Recreation Path/pedestrian trail: The Official Map shows a proposed recreation path running east - west along the project's southerly boundary. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the previous proposal but not this proposal. The Recreation Path Committee will be asked to review this proposal and submit comments. Staff suggests the applicant provide a 20 foot pedestrian easement to access the proposed open space to the north. School Impact: Enclosed is a letter from School Superintendent Bruce Chattman indicating that Central School can accommodate the enrollment impact from this development. Other: --- plan should indicate that the northerly boundary is the boundary between the IO District to the north and the SEQ District to the south. --- the correct name of Highland Drive is Highland Terrace. --- the open space lots should have some type of designation (e.g., common area "A" etc.). 4) JOHN LARKIN - BUILDING MODIFICATIONS - REVISED FINAL PLAT This project consists of amending an approved planned residential development consisting of 120 multi -family units and 37 single family units, Bay Crest Road. The amendment consists of minor revisions to the layout of five (5) duplex buildings on 1.5 acres of land (i.e., "Cluster C"). This project was last revised on 6/27/95 (minutes enclosed). 2 Memorandum - Planning August 13, 1996 agenda items August 9, 1996 Page 2 Parking: A total of 11 spaces are required and 11 spaces including one (1) handicapped space are shown on the plan. Density: The maximum density permitted is two (2) units. The ZBA in the past and most recently on 12/11/95 granted variances to allow a greater density than permitted. Sewer: The sewer allocation requested is 150 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. 5) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots (40 lots for development and two (2) open space lots). This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84. The sketch plan was reviewed on 4/23/96 (minutes enclosed). This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north by the recently approved 12 lot industrial subdivision owned by Summer Ice Joint Venture, on the east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul- de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 52 dwelling units and this extension would add 40 more units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul-de-sac to 50 units. This was an issue of concern expressed by the commission at the sketch plan review. A second access should be provided. The applicant is proposing a 400 foot long median from the existing Dubois Drive turn -around to the start of the proposed "loop" road. This median does not negate the fact that 40 additional dwelling units would be added to a cul-de-sac street which already serves 50 units. A 60 foot r.o.w. is being reserved for possible future connection to development on the adjacent property to the east. Staff recommends that this 60 foot connection be relocated in the vicinity of lots #71 and 72 so as not to go through a wetland. 2 Memorandum - Planning August 13, 1996 agenda items August 9, 1996 Page 3 �, ID I Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 103 units for development (1.2 x 86). The development area'(20 acres) on this lot as shown on the SEQ zoning map generates 80 units (4 x 20). Since 57 units are already developed, a maximum of 46 units would be available for development. The applicant is proposing 40 lots for development. Non -buildable area: All or a portion of the following lots are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map: qd. 62-68, 70-73, 89 and 90. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. The applicant has submitted comments addressing these criteria (see enclosed). C.O. Zone: A portion of the proposed street is located within a CO zone (i.e., wetland buffer) which can not be developed unless the requirements of Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations are met. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has inadequately addressed c� the criteria in Section 3.503(a) - (e). These should be addressed by a qualified wetland expert. Lot size/frontage: The minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet. All lots will meet this minimum requirement. The minimum frontage requirement is 85 feet. All lots will meet t this requirement with the following exceptions: lots #58, 70, 71 �U,J and 79. Staff recommends that lots #58 and 79 be designed to meet minimum frontage requirements since these are corner lots and will have two 2 front ( ) yard setbacks. Sb r 4 Sheet SP1 - SP3 should show setback requirements for each lot. Recreation path/pedestrian trail: The Official Map shows a proposed recreation path running east - west along the project's southerly boundary. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed this plan and recommends that an easement be granted north from the north loop of Dubois Drive into open space lot #98 then east to the boundary of the property. Access to this lot is shown between lots #64 and 65 (see enclosed memo from Recreation Path Committee). Staff recommends that the connection to open space lot #98 be relocated to the vicinity of lots 66 and 67 so as to avoid a wetland and buffer. This connection should be constructed and defined with an attractive fence (similar to what was done at 3 Memorandum - Planning August 13, 1996 agenda items August 9, 1996 Page 4 that Village @ Dorset Park) during the construction of the road so the owners of lots 66 and 67 are well aware that a pedestrian/path easement exists. Staff also recommends that an easement be provided which connects the 15 foot pedestrian easement on the Green Acres, Inc. property through this development to the 20 foot easement along the north boundary line on the Summer Ice Joint Venture property. Landscaping: The proposed street trees will have a value of $25,795. Also, two (2) trees are required to be planted on each residential lot. (Section 412.4 of the subdivision regulations). Any landscaping proposed within the scenic view protection (SVP)�rus area must meet the height limitations imposed by the SVP. Scenic View Protection Zone: All or portions of lots #65-73, and,. 85-90 are located within the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Zone. Applicant should provide information regarding 7U the maximum height of buildings allowed on lots located within the SVP. Wetlands: The wetlands, with the associated 50 foot buffer, are shown on the plan. Applicant should submit evidence that the wetlands shown on the map were delineated by a professional wetland expert. This expert should address the criteria under Section 3.503 of the zoning regulations for the encroachment of the road in the C.O. Zone. Sewer: The sewer allocation requested is 19,100 gpd. The applicant should be aware that the policy of the Commission has , been to grant allocation for a 10 year period. Any portion of the project not developed within this time period would require reapproval for sewer allocation. Traffic: Applicant should conduct a traffic study to look at safety issues at the intersection of Dubois Drive and Hinesburg �� Road, evaluate the need for any turning lanes and a signal warrant analysis. All data and a report should be submitted to staff for review. Sidewalk: Sidewalks will be provided along the proposed street. Lighting: Plans should be revised to include street light locations. 4 Memorandum - Planning August 13, 1996 agenda items August 9,. 1996 Page 5 Mailbox cluster: The plans should show a mailbox cluster area located outside of the street r.o.w. This mailbox cluster area should be maintained by the homeowner's association. Legal documents: The applicant should submit for review and approval by the City Attorney all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g., irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public road, and pedestrian trail easement). School Impact: School Superintendent Bruce Chattman has indicated that Central School can accommodate the enrollment impact from the development (see enclosed). PUD criteria: The applicant should submit a report which addresses each of the criteria under Section 26.151 of the zoning regulations 5� and how the project complies with each one of the criteria. Other: Each house will be assessed road, school and recreation impact fees. 6) HOSPITALITY INNS - ADD RETAIL SHOPS - REVISED FINAL PLAT This project consists of amending a planned unit development consisting of a 309 room hotel/conference center, Sheraton Inn, 870 Williston Road. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a new drop-off canopy, 2) enclosing existing canopy for shops, and 3) site modifications. The sketch plan was reviewed on 4/9/96 (minutes enclosed). This property located at 870 Williston Road lies within the Cl and CO Districts. It is bounded on the west by undeveloped lands of UVM, on the north by the UVM commuter lot, on the east by I-89 and on the south by Williston Road. Access/circulation: Access is provided by a 47 foot wide curb cut on Williston Road. This access also provides access to the UVM commuter lot. No changes proposed. Internal circulation will be modified by adding a new drive off the main access drive to accommodate the new drop-off area. Circulation is adequate. 61 I CITY OF SOUTH BURL_ ITON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 b. Applicant Same C. Contact person Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 308, Williston VT 05495 879-6331 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 4z.( single family lots 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee Simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Green Acres (north) William Mikell (east) William Wessell (so-gth) 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. none 6) Proposed ex Lion, relocation, or moc hcation of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Sewer, water, streets drainage 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: None 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties, 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities,, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. 1-2 3 -`6. date dubois CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road So Burlington, VT 05403 b. Applicant Same C. Contact person Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box_ 308, Williston VT 05495 879-6331 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 68 single family lots 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee Simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Green Acres (north) William Mikell (east) William Wessell (south) 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Sewer, water, streets, drainage 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: None 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties, 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities,, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. - � 3 (Sign e) applicant or contact erson date dubois TAX MAP #: 77 FILE #: LOCATION: STONEHEDGE DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE 4-25-78 PP PHASE I 6-6-78 FP if" 12-12-78 RFP IT" 3-13-79 PP PHASE II 11-27-79 FP itIf 4-29-80 RFP CLUSTER J 7-21-81 RFP PHASE II GRAND LIST #: ? FILE NAME: BROWN,MERV(GLENWOOD.... 11 if if BROWN,MERV(STONEHEDGE... TAX MAP #: 82A GRAND LIST #: ? FILE #: LOCATION: SUMMIT AT SPEAR DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE FILE NAME: 11-11-80 SK 143 UNIT PUD NOWLAND, AURORA(PECOR, R.) 2-3-81 PP 136 IT 8-11-81 FP 134 if 3-18-86 REMOVE 60 FOOT R.O.W. if 8-27-96 RFP TO APPROVE PLAT @ BK 200 PG 28-9 it TAX MAP #: 53A FILE #: LOCATION: VILLAGE AT DORSET PARK GRAND LIST #: ? DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE 3-1-88 SK 178 UNIT PRD 4-12-88 RSK ifif 5-31-88 RFP if " if 1-9-90 SK if it 3-27-90 RFP of if 8-6-91 SK 121 LOTS,24 M.F. 4-2-92 RFP MULTI -FAMILY BLDGS. 8-11-92 RFP REDUCE # OF UNITS 9-10-96 APPROVAL WIDEN 8 DRIVEWAYS FILE NAME: SOUTHSETT AT SWIFT -A & G d 5. PLA14NING C0MM13SI0N NOVEMBER 5. 1979 developer could make the improvements and maintain it. Mr. .foolery did not want that access open until the Commission, City Engineer, and Fire and Police Chiefs could agree on how to handle it. Mr. O'Bryan felt the abutting development could maintain the easement since it was so short on this developer's side. Mr. Mona felt the note on the drawing relating to the access should be removed. It was suggested that there be a simple recording of the right of way. Ns. Poger said the easement should be provided as the City Attorney suggests. Mr. Page said they had looked at the two nearest sigrallized intersections to this project - Williston Road and Kexinedy Drive, and Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. He said that traffic consultant Bruce Houghton's analysis of the capacity of those intersections is based on a one hour count on January 9.: The applicants observed the intersection themselves for 4,1/2 hour periods and found it not to be as congested as Mr. Houghton suggests. Mr. Page noted that they had not calculated the capacity or the range of service. Mr. Woolery noted that this development would not affect the left turn movement from Hinesburg Road onto Kennedy but said it would affect the left turn off Williston Road onto Kennedy, both of which movements are at high capacities according to Mr. Boughton. It was suggested that left turn arrows be put in place before the application was approved. Mr. Page felt the intersections were not at level D. At Hinesburg Road, he said they looked at 41 cycles and no car waited through a signal change to get through. The average was 4 cars through during a cycle, the maximum was 8, and of the cycles had no traffic going through. The traffic study for the project, done by Land Plan Inc. shows that only one car will come from the Williston -Kennedy intersection, where Mr. Houghton shows it is not lower than level C service. .•Ir. Woolery felt this developer was putting an exceptionally costly sidewalk in and he felt left turn arrows were an imposition on top of that cost. Mx. Mona moved to continue the public hearing on the final plat apnlication of L.T.H. Associates for a 17 unit apartment project at 200 Kennedy Drive to two weeks from tonight, November 27, at City Hall, at 7:30 pm. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion and it carried with Messrs. Jacob and Woolery voting no. Public hearing on final plat a nlication of the Glenwood Cor oration for Phase II 109 condominium units of the Stonehed.-e deve opm6?M-.___ _- Mr. Page said the area in question was 43 acres, of which 7 were deeded to the City for parkland. It is zoned R4 and final plat approval has been given for phase 1 (92 units). The applicants are aware that the City has made application for federal funding for a land swap and purchase of some property and if that happens they will come to the Commission for approval of buildings and parking. Walkways will be constructed from the buildings to parking areas and detailed construction drawings will be given to the staff in City Hall. Buildings will be constructed as shown on the plan, and detailed drawings will be given to the City before building permits are issued.. Additional access points to the loop road, asked for by the Fire Chief, have been shown. They propose that the loop road in this phase be the same as in phase 1 - 20' pavement with gravel base and 5' shoulders on both sides. There is room for a 60' right of way in phase 1 and in phase 2 also. It was mentioned that if the Commission wanted City street standards in phase 2, it could also ask for them in phase 1. Idr. Page noted that the first cluster of units was built in 1975 and is served by a private road. No requests have been Wade to the City to change the status of that road. Phase 1 is 112 completed, Mr. rage said. The City :ianager has suggested public streets. ir. fona felt 20' streets were inadequate. Makin] the streets public was discussed. The base necessary to widen the streets exists. The Commission did not feel curbs were necessary, and a 24' pavement width was mentioned. There is parking provided within the clusters and none will be on the streets. C-V FLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1979 Mr. Page said two sewer gaugings had been done and showed excess capacity for sewage flow into the Laurel Hill and Andrews Avenue sewers. There is a bottleneck on Imperial Avenue. Mr. Page said public streets would be acceptable if the standards were modified. Rights of way are shown to properties north and south of this project. It was pointed out that if a section of the loop road were blocked, emergency vehicles could not get all the way around the project. All utilities are public. The Commission would like to see 24' of pavement width and a 30' base for the road in both phases. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for phase 2 109 units of the Stonehedge development until two weeks from tonight, November 27, at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Xr. Jacob seconded the motion and all were in favor. Continuation of site plan review of parking lot expansion for McDonald's at 1225 Williston Road The applicants have requested a postponement of the hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 pm. Clerk 2. PLANNING COMUMISSION the 4. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days.__ 5. A landscaping bond of at least $2500 shall be xistina vegetation meets the landscaping requireme vided: NOVEMBER 27, 1979 6. The plan of record shall be revised to show contour changes especial_lY as affected by the fill for the sidewalk in the CO district. Xr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. rage noted that everything shown on the plan, the developer was bound to. The motion carried without dissent. _. Continuation of ublic hearin_ on final plat application of the blenwood Cor orat for phase II 109 condominium units of the Stonehed_e development Mr. Page said the Fire Chief had asked for access points from the clusters to the loop road and that on 3 out of the 7 clusters it had not been feasible to do that. One already had two access points and two, if connected, would have roads with slopes of 14-15%► which is not safe. There will be a turnaround within cluster J and the Chief has said he can live with this plan. A typical city street road has been shown on the plan with 24' of pavement and a 30' base. 60' of right of way has been given for the road all the way around the site and the new road will tie into the end of the existing loop road in phase I. The developers want to upgrade the phase I road in stages and it will match the new road (24' pavement, 30' base. When the entire road is completed and inspected, it will be offered to the city, and if accepted, deeded over. An offer of dedication can be used for this. The developers agreed to all points of the City Engineer's 11/21/79 memo. They also noted that in future this development can be connected to land to the north or south. If the land swap being contemplated in that area goes through, the project will have to be redesigned. Mr. Page gave the Commission a phasing schedule (copy attached. There was no problem with this schedule. Kr. Nona asked that the curbs come out tangent to two parallel lines 30' apart by the cul-de-sac. He raised the issue of having so many dwelling units in an area with one entrance. Mr. Jacob suggested opening Andrews Avenue to solve the problem. Mr. Page said that when and if the need arose, a right of way could be extended to either north or south. A few buildings on the plan are shown on the property line. Mr. Page said It was the developers intention to get buildings at least 5' from the right of way. He added that as part of the application the developer was saying that if a specific plan for a cluster or building is different from what is shown on the large drawings, they will come back to the Commission, barring an administrative decision to the contrary. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for a 109 unit condominium project, as depicted on a lan entitled " Stone ned e___Q_Qados.niums-1hase 2+-109 units", last revised 11 16 79, prepared by Ronald O'Bryan, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Detailed site information for each cluster - includinE finished buildin-- _.Aa a(nnA nn huildin�- shall be closer than 5' to the 0' right of way), drainage, ,sewer, water and road details walkways and other inf ozaation - sr.a11 ve �roYlacl riot to the issuance of an buildin perm -it for that cluster. If the layout of buildings, parkingareas and or sewer and water lines in any cluster has been tl modified the plan shall be resubmitted for revised final plat aT,:, l significan 1 01 3. PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1979 2. Wherever sewer or water mains are located outside of the proposed public street right of way, easements 20 feet in width shall be provided to the city, in form and content satisfactory to the City Attorney. Leo'' 3. Sewer capacity at the Imperial Drive bottleneck shall be gauged prior to construction of the 70th unit. No subsequent building permit shall be issued until provision is made for adequate sewage flow through the bottleneck. 4. The stipulations of William Szymanski's memo, dated November 21, 1979, shall apply. 5. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. , 6. Per the applicant's offer, 1) the streets when completed shall be offered to the city to become public streets and 2 the phase 1 road shall be upgraded in stages to be a 24' pavement with a 30' base, 7. Street access to any development to the south can be at any point along the southern boundary of this property. Mr. Mona seconded the motion. On #2, the 20' easement will consist of 10' on each side of the lines. Mr. Jacob asked about the recreation fee and was told that 7.6 acres of land had been given to the city. Regarding access to land to the south, I.1r. Page noted that this developer did not want to be required to accelerate his roadway schedule to accomodate another developer. The motion carried unanimously. _Continuation of site plan review of parking lot expansion for McDonald's at 1225 Williston Road Mr. Spitztsaid the applicant had requested a two week delay. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the site plan review of parking lot expansion for McDonald's'at 1225 Williston Road -until two Meeks from tonight, at City Hall, at 7:30 pm. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion and all were in f avor. Site plan review of 5000 square foot commercial building for South Burlington Realty Corporation at 60 San Remo Drive Mr. Douglas Schner said that a similar plan had been submitted to the Planning Commission in November of 1977, but at that time it was to be a building for a gym facility. Now they want to put in warehouse space. This plan has been to the Zoning Board. It was decided that since this is a different use, the drive around the building, formerly for dropping children off, has no use and has been eliminated. A green strip has been added around the north line and the entrance and exit has been altered. The building now is set back 50', as requested by the Zoning Board and 14 parking spaces are shown. There is an existing stockade fence on the east boundary. Plantings will be put in to upgrade the property and the plan for the adjacent vacant lot (also owned by the same company) will be a mirror image of this lot. Mr. Schner showed the Commission the drainage plan, connecting to the line on San Remo Drive. There might also be a drain under theloadirg dock area. Ko surface or roof drainage will go onto any other property. Mr. Levesque noted that there was residential land behind this property and he asked that more cedars be put on that line vthan on the side line, so there will i 1 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Cammission Fran: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Pocor Application (Nowland Property) Date: 1/9/80 A. Irat and Building Layout Proposed plat now shows 69 single family lots on approximately 35 acres and 74 multi family units on 8 acres. Streets comprise the balance of 8 acres. The great majority of lets are fx�twren � and 1/3 acre in size. S(rv(rral setbacks in tree multi family area should be increased, preferably to 1_)0 feet but no less than 30 feet. Setback requirements for the single family lots have not yet been discussed. B. Street Layout Southerly accent; has been relocated from Spear Street to Pheasant Way. fk-m- --� ever, new access point does not have adequate sight distance and will have to rx: moved to a different point on Pheasant Way. Applicant has apparently been granted a permanent easement for use of Pheasan* Way; i.e. Pheasant Way's status as a city street has not yet been resolved. The City Attorney is reviewing whether a permanent easement is legally acceptable to the City at this time. One of the "paper-clip" variations of a cul-de-sac has been retained and is being reviewed by the City Manager. From a planning viewpoint it appears to be an inrx)vative aril workable concept. Since the multi f,.unily section contains well over 50 units, a second access should be provided. An 80 f-(x)t right-o1_-w,_1y has been made available for a pu,_sible future street connection between Shelburne Road and Spear Street. The proposed ri(3ht-of-WIly has tx.,en moved slightly from a right-of-way reserved in a previous Nowland Sub- division approval. however, the new location may offer a better route and the applicant should provide information on potential connecting points. If changed, previously recorded agreements must be removed, including an agreement for a short stretch of a corridor over land purchased by UVM from Nowland. C. Sidewalks A sidewalk is shown on 1 side of all public streets except the short "paper- clip." Walkways are also planned for the multi family section but are not yet shown. D. Public Utilities --Water and Sewer Location of utilities is shown; engineering details will be provided for fir: 1 C. M .' T: ;:i l ON 6. JULY 14. 17r+1 ..,.:uwri 11;, 1:4' .aide with a &;' right of way. Mr. Milot said sti .l::tioz was that they have an alternate access cn a city street nor s .;trcet wit:,. ar off{.r of de,lication, and Pheasant ;day is neither. _::is :jeans they cannot ue it and the only other alternate is Spear Street. They wculd remove the access if and when Pheasant Way can be used and will bend for that. .r. ?a,;;e said a 1.7 acre site was shown for a city park. There are 19 lots in the H1 zone and there will be 134 units instead of t:.e Y5") originally propose:. "!;-lot W1.3 to the public perk in a - r ivate development 'tecauae ne `eft it would be hard to police and he did not want people t::erin� :ere and disturbing; the residents. :'i t--i Patrick, er.-ineer for the project, said there was a culvert u n7cr ::pear .street and that water will be brou6ht through this land. ::F: drsinj:,,e will Le able to handle full development across the street. "he multi -family :section will have a separate system. The sanitary Sewer will ::tart 4U"' from Pheasant 'clay and go to Creen Mountain Drive. Crossing the Ti:-! land has been dlncusoed, but the board of trustees must also discuss it and they will not meet until fall. There is ample sewer capacity for t::e :evelorment. Yr. ::;:itz said he ac;rmcd with the fire chief that the dual drive was not what was meant by a second access. They feel it should be a totally different location and c1hould be ut in here unless there is a good reason not to do so. He also did not like the proposed temporary access to pear ;;treet. He did not like temporary roads and he added that, if the other access never came to be, the temporary road might not be in the best location for it. He recommended that the project be approved in p"ses xith the last phase to be the lots on :heasant Way and in that area. He sut,,;e_>ted phasing it over a 3 year period. If things worked out with "herisant clay, the temporary access would not be put in, and if they did not, t::zt connection to the road would not be built. Vr. Xona felt the Access to the multi -family units should be discussed. lery liked tl e dial drive idea and i•:r. EwinC felt it met the ordinance. :ona said it bothered t:iy. "r. Levesque said the plan was like hftving spear Greets into the area. He wondered if another access could come c': t::e back of the cul-de-sac, but Vr. Blot said that was a natural ration between the 2 develo,=.ants and a lot of fill would have to be ::,,;t in to Yut a connection in there. A lot of trees would be lost. Mr. J.jc b felt the dual access was all right if it was the only way to do it. question of .:rear .street was then discussed. %ir. Yilot said he :refer to have the alternate access to :gear atreet even if the . .;ect hased, for safety reasons. Messrs. :Blot and Krona agreed that 1: ,z 1-7, cn i'hersant ',ny, were in no-man's land until the controversy over c-;et wfaa resolved. :r. :%ilot said he wanted to build the Pheasant „a j cc:.Notion to city ,;tand.ards and Fate it so no one would use it. Mr. of ry :aid th;t -.could leave only 4 or 5 lots without access and he saw no no :..cr. ...* to b :i1d that. Yr. :ona noted that most Commission members connection to 7hensant 'clay. :.:r. Leves lue fF�lt the tam ovary read was a good safety solution and :r. _;x,. ..,lt t hz developer had done ti:e best he could. He felt it might „e a little too narrow for tiie f ire chief. Kr. doolery felt this solution wad as -c, as the city w ns �ci::� to get and he did not feel the temporary r:. dn be o,.:ilt unti:. there were quite a numoer of houses in there. He thoue:at the temporary access would have to be built in any case, because 2. PLANNING COMMISSION TT Ie Commission folt it did n,jt have- en,)ukrr �r.�o_ �_.__,.. LG n a wtietner to zone that land Industrial or i:,:si:enti;,l, _:o it �..�., leave it floodplain for now so members couli lock at tKa Xr. doolery moved to adopt the i looc and Subdivi3ion regulations as amended 12/17'60 with the two of 1_, nl and with the addition of the proposed zoning map revisions, rr. Jacob seconded the motion and it passed without dissent. Application by R. Pecor and Associates for preliminary plat approval of a 143-unit planned unit development on Spear Street Mr. Mona arrived at this point. Mr. Page said the area was 51 acres in size and 143 units are proposed, of which 69 are single family lots and 74 are attached multi- family units. 12 single family lots have been dropped from the previous plan. The 69 lots take up about 39 acres, the streets take about 8 acres, and the rest is the multi -family area. The road network has been altered to provide access to Pheasant Way as the Commission requested at site -plan. There is only one "paperclip" left and the rest of the road network is made up of city streets with 30' of pavement, curbs and a sidewalk on one side. The access to the multi -family portion has an island in the middle and will be private. The island is for esthetics and to provide a second access to that part of the land in that an overturned vehicle cannot block both sides of that road. These is an existing natural buffer around the multi -family area and when the future city street is built, there will be a shorter north - south entrance to that area. Mr. Page said some overflow parking was provided in the paperclip. The City .Manager does not want to maintain these spaces and Mr. Po;er pointed out that if they were not maintained they would be useless in the winter. There is a large open area shown on the plan. Some landowners on Spear :street have been given view rights and will be able to purchase additional land behind their homes. This parcel is not part of this review but will be before the Commission at a later date for separate action. Audience members raised questions about lot sizes, setbacks, and trees in the area. Une member asked whether the R1 setbacks would be adhered to in the R1 portion of the land. He was told that had not been resolved. The Commission has not felt it would be desirable to have 1 acre lots in one area and 1/4 acre lots in another area. The Commission can, with a PUD, set whatever setbacks it wants. There are 20 acres zoned R1 and the rest is R4. The lots vary in size as proposed now. The issue of access to Pheasant Way was discussed. There is a difference of opinion between the owner of that street and the city as to whether it is a public or a private street and the issue is in court. The street has not been deeded to the city yet and Mr. Swing did not think the Commission could allow access to it under those conditions. Mr. Poger felt the problem was out of the Commission's hands. He said development could be phased so nothing - used Pheasant Way until the issue was decided. Mr. Milot said he had negotiated an agreement of access to Pheasant Way from the owner, ti:r. Ireland, but he said he would not ask for a building permit for the lots on that street because it is not a city street yet. He will not come to the city until the case is settled. One row of lots is affected by this. He suggested that until the case was settled he would bring the road over and rut in an emergency access only. Mr. ;blot said they had originally proposed two accesses to Spear Street and the Commission had not liked that, so they changed the layout as requested. FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Date: 2/20/97 To: Joe Weith Fax: Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Sender: Joe McLean ?a �O You should receive 7 page(s), including this cover sheet. If you do not receive all the pages, please call 802) 660-2555. MESSAGE Joe: I am faxing the Dubois' answers to our interrogatories in the above -referenced matter. Please review them and get back to me with your thoughts. In particular, please consider whether we are going to need an expert witness in this case. If so, they have asked us to identify that person and to state the basis of his/her testimony. Thanks, Joe This message is intended only for ; is use of th sd&cwee and may :. rain infb mation that is prvil:ged and aonf!dential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hareby notified that any dissa ri ation :)f this commuricaion ?s stnc­tly prohibited. if you have received this communication in error, please notify us i; m4d ate,y by telephcne (802-660.2555). Thank you. RY Q 3CHMUCKeR 'TORNUYS AT LAW 10 WILURTON ROAD P.O.Box :37a JI IUTM SVRLiNOTON, /tRMONT 05407 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) HOMER AND NIAKIE DUBOIS ) Docket No. E96-166 I✓LL�NT� AN��J6� R� TO 'iTY �7F cnrrr-H BURL i 1. Please state the name and address of the person answering fahese interrogatories. ANSWER: Robert J. Perry, Esq., perry &c Schmucker, P.Q. Box 2323, So. Burlington, VT 05407. 2. Please state in comxplete and explicit detail each and every reason why you contend that the development project that is the subject of this appeal has Mo access roads in compliance with the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, ANSWER: The development project has access to Hinesburg Road from Dubois Drive and Highland Terrace, Highland Terrace was constructed by the applicants as a second access in the first phase of the Ledge Knoll project. 3. Please state in complete and explicit detail each and every reason why you contend that the South Burlington Planning Commission has waived the requirement(s) set forth in §401,1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations that "[t]he number of dwelling units served by a cul-de_sac or by a system of streets s'ranirg a common single access to an arterial or colie.ior street shall not exceed 50 unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Planning Lom- fission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner" with respect to Appellants' project. 1 3f)d � a a ` ANSwER: Planning Commission approval of a prior phase of the Ledge Knoll development required a r,.)adway connection to the northerly adjacent property then owmed by Green Acre,,, Inc, The South Burlington planning Commission approved the subdivision of said property in 1 �96 (then owned by Summer Ice Joint Ventures, Inc.} ,xithout making provision for the continuation of the roadway from Knoll Circle or requiring connection to the Phase III land. T'he approved plan contemplates use of the SO foot c�,ide dedicated roadway for 'i pedestrian access to ,a pedestrian easement extendingfrom Vermont Route 1 I S to the easterly j sideline of the property. 4. Please produce each and every document, record, report, map, chart, graph, photograph or record;-,g that supports your contention that the South Burlington planning Commission has waived �Jhe require:nent(s) set forth in §40l I (g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations with respect to Appellants' project. ANSWER: Documents are the Summer Ice Ventures, Inc. approved development plans, the Planning Commission Minutes and materials submitted to the City in support of the subdivision request. All of these documents are in the City's files. S. Please specifically- identify each and every instance in which the South Burlington Planning C'onunzission has approved development on land adjacent to Appellants' project in a rnanre;- that is inconsistent with the requirements of §40 Lill (g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. ANSWER: The Planning Commission: approval of the Summer Ice project approves a dead end street, Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations states: "cul-de-sac streets are 1AV it SCHMVCKCR TTORNOYS AT LAw -RO W(LUSTON ROAD P. 0. BOX 7313 OUTH BURLINOTON, 2 VSRMONT05407 ;,y recommended only in residential districts. The length � gth of a cul-de-sac street shall not exceed 10 r times the minimum req�. red lot frontage for the district(s) involved". 6. Please state in complete and explicit detail each and every reason why you i contend that the South l3wilington Planning Commission has unlawfully discriminated against € I Appellants by denying t1.Fzr application for relirnin p ary plat approval for lack of a second access. 8 ANSWER; At a minimum, the South Burlington Planning Commission has approved three residential projects involving more than 50 dwelling units served by cul-de-sac streets. These projects are the Overlook At Spear Condominiurn development, the Village At Dorset Park, an Stonehedge, -° 7• Please produce each and every document, record, report, map, chart, graph, photograph or recording that supports your contention that the South Burlington Planning Commission has unlawfully discriminated against Appellants by denying their application for preliminary plat approval for lack of a second access. ANSWER; All plans, approvals, and relevant materials are in the possession of the City of South Burlington. 8. Please state each and ever, reason why you contend that the development project that is the subject of this appeal will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal se�1,ices, including adequate emergency service. ANSWER: (a) Any burden on municipal services of Ledge Knoll, Phase III, are less than the above -cited projects, On the assumption that these projects establish a standard, RY & 8GMMUCKER FrORNRV6 AT LAW the subject project does not cause an unreasonable burden. 50 WILUvrON ROAD P. O. Box 2313 )UTM BURLINGTON. VERMONT 004,07 ,I 7Y & NCHMUCKCR TORNNVS AT LAW 4 WOLUSTON ROAD �. O. BOX 23i9 )TH SURLINOTON. 9RMONT09407 (b) .As existing Ledge Knoll and proposed Ledge Knoll projects are configured, only slbo-t segments of Dubois Drive create single access to Phase III. Knoll Circle and Highland Ter'ac nrcvide alternate routes as does the proposed configuration of Phase III. The only sin& access ifo, frcrn proposed Lot 58 to existing Lot 25 and from existing Lot 36 to Lot 40. (c) The Planning Commission minutes of August 13, 1996 and the findings/decision dated September 10, !996 do not suggest any Unreasonable burden on the City to provide municipal services. 9. Please identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. For each expert - testify. Please state the subject matter on which each expert or experts are expected to (b) Please state the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify. (c) Please summarize the grounds for each opinion. ANSWER. Expert witncs-Ses are anticipated to be Richa•d P, Trudell and James T. Hart of Trudeli Consulting Engineers, :nc. One or both of them. will testify as to the site conditions, the devel;.p me;tt configuration, topography, ;and traffic. The substance of their facts and opinions were prvvidnd to the C tti of South Burlington at a Plaruning Con"•mission meeting on August 13, 1996. tY & 9CHMUCNQR tORNMYS AT LAW 0 WILUITON MOA0 V. 0. &OX 2382 JTN BVMLINOTON, SAMONT 06407 Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 18th day of February, 1997. 5 PERRY & SCHMUCKER 7 By: Robert J. Perry, sq. Attorney for Appellants STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAII.(FIRM2555@AOL.COM) ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) February 27, 1997 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 In re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA I have enclosed, for filing with the Court, our Certificate of Service relative to the above -referenced matter. JSM/maf Enclosure cc: Robert J. William A. William O. Raymond J. SON436.COR Perry, Esq.' Fead, Esq. Fisk Belair, Zoning & Planning Lean STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) Docket No. E96-166 HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOSEPH S. McLEAN, hereby certify that I served City's Second Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Appellants Homer and Marie Dubois upon Appellants, Homer and Marie Dubois, by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail, postage pre -paid this 27th day of February, 1997, addressed to their attorney, Robert J. Perry, Esq., Perry & Schmucker, P.O. Box 2323, 1480 Williston Road, South Burlington, VT 05407-2323. Dated at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, this 27th day of February, 1997. SON418.LIT STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. Attorneys for the City of South Burlington / By: Jq, e McLean 3TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, PT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) Docket No. E96-166 HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS ) CITY'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO APPELLANTS HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and submits the following interrogatories and requests to produce to Appellants Homer and Marie Dubois. 1. Please state the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories. 2. Please produce any and all evidence in your possession indicating that Highland Terrace, as constructed, was approved as a second access to the Ledge Knoll development by the South Burlington Planning Commission. If you allege that the City currently possesses documents or other evidence supporting your position that the Ledge Knoll project has two access roads in compliance with the requirements of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, specifically identify those documents and state how they support your contention. 3. Please produce any and all evidence in your possession indicating that the City, acting through its Planning Commission, knowingly and voluntarily relinquished its right to require Appellants' compliance with §401.1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. If you allege that the City currently possesses documents or other evidence supporting your contention that it waived its right to require compliance with §401.1(g), STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS ATLAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON. VT 05402-1507 specifically identify those documents and state how they support your contention. 4. Please explain in detail how that Planning Commission's approval of the Summer Ice project is inconsistent with §401.1(g) of the Subdivision Regulations. How is the alleged inconsistency relevant to the denial of Appellants' project? 5. Please produce any and all evidence in your possession demonstrating the City's intent and/or conscious practice to discriminate against Appellants by denying their application for preliminary plat approval for lack of a second access. If you allege that the City currently possesses documents or other evidence supporting your contention that it discriminated against Appellants, specifically identify those documents and state how they support your contention. 6. Please produce a resume or curriculum vitae for each of the expert witnesses that you anticipate calling at trial. 7. Please state the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert that you have identified is expected to testify at the merits hearing in this matter and summarize the basis for each opinion. 1997. SON417.LIT DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 27th day of February, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL P ,E & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attor s r � Jotebh S . McLean 2 1 STEVENF. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ("ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 E-MAII0IRM2555@A0L. COM) January 21, 1997 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main St., 1st Flr. Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERTE.FLETCHER Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -referenced matter is my Discovery Certificate. Thank you. Very truly yours, seph S. McLean JSM/gmt Enclosure cc: Robert J. Perry, Esq. William A. Fead, Esq. William O. Fisk Raymond J. Belair, Zoning & Planning SON416.COR 96-4230 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) Docket No. E96-166 HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS ) DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE I, JOSEPH S. McLEAN, hereby certify that on January 21, 1997, I served a copy of the City of South Burlington's First Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Appellants Homer and Marie Dubois upon the Appellants by mailing a copy of same, first class mail postage prepaid, to their attorneys as follows: Robert J. Perry, Esq., Perry & Schmucker, 1480 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2323, South Burlington, Vermont 05407-2323. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 21st day of January, 1997. cc: Robert J. Perry, Esq. William A. Fead, Esq. William 0. Fisk SON412.LIT 96-4230 �TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 RA7TERY STREET BUIUANMY)N. V1'05402-1507 Job' p`fi S . McLean Battery Street .O. Box 1507 Burlington, VT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 1 MTZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PA_ BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON. YT 0540b1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) Docket No. E96-166 HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO APPELLANTS HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel & Page, P.C., and submits the following interrogatories and requests to produce to Appellants Homer and Marie Dubois. 1. Please state the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories. 2. Please state in complete and explicit detail each and every reason why you contend that the development project that is the subject of this appeal has two access roads in compliance with the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. 3. Please state in complete and explicit detail each and every reason why you contend that the South Burlington Planning Commission has waived the requirement(s) set forth in §401.1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations that "[t]he number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed 50 unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Planning Commission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner" with respect to Appellants' project. 1 MTZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 RAWERY STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05402-1507 4. Please produce each and every document, record, report, map, chart, graph, photograph or recording that supports your contention that the South Burlington Planning Commission has waived the requirement(s) set forth in §401.1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations with respect to Appellants' project. 5. Please specifically identify each and every instance in which the South Burlington Planning Commission has approved development on land adjacent to Appellants' project in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of §401.1(g) of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations. 6. Please state in complete and explicit detail each and every reason why you contend that the South Burlington Planning Commission has unlawfully discriminated against Appellants by denying their application for preliminary plat approval for lack of a second access. 7. Please produce each and every document, record, report, map, chart, graph, photograph or recording that supports your contention that the South Burlington Planning Commission has unlawfully discriminated against Appellants by denying their application for preliminary plat approval for lack of a second access. 8. Please state each and every reason why you contend that the development project that is the subject of this appeal will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal services, including adequate emergency service. 2 9. Please identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. For each expert: (a) Please state the subject matter on which each expert or experts are expected to testify. (b) Please state the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify. 1997. SON411. LIT >TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1507 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, N'T 05402-1507 (c) Please summarize the grounds for each opinion. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 21st day of January, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. Its Attorneys Joseph S. McLean 3 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET I SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 15, 1996 Joseph S. McLean Stitzel & Page, P.C. P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois & Frank Irish Viglation Dear Joe: Enclosed are copies of documents from the Homer & Marie Dubois file which you requested. Also, please find documents from the Frank Irish file. It appears that the excavation took place betwieen March 19, 1996 and April 9, 1996. If you need more information, please let me know. Sincerely, a d d�elair R ym r� J , Zoning and Planning Assistant 4' RJB/mcp Encls (Ir TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. September 5, 1996 Mr. Joe Weith,. City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Ledgeknoll Dear Joe: This letter is to address staff review comments of August 13, 1996 and items the Planning Commission asked us to address. 1. Access - Ledgeknoll is accessed by two city street connections. The first is onto Route 116 and the second is onto Highland Terrace. The requirement for a second access is contained in page 16 item 7 of the subdivision regulations. The second access was discussed during deliberations for phase I of this project and was approved by the Planning Commission on May 29, 1984. The second access was built by Mr. Dubois at his expense in order to fulfill the requirements for a second access for more than 50 units. (See approval dated May 1984) The total number of lots served off the two accesses will be 97 lots. A 60 ft. r.o.w. was reserved from Knoll Circle to property north of Ledgeknoll. Under phase III of the project the applicant is proposing to reserve another 60 r.o.w. for future extension of the street system, to lands east of the site, at the request of the City. This r.o.w. is located near lots 71 and 72 at the request of the City, so it does not go through a wetland. The City has discouraged a connector street to the Summer Ice property north of Ledge knoll. 2. Density - The proposal for 40 lots makes a total of 97 lot is this P.R.D., which is within the allowable density for the site. Se the site plan for density calculations. 3. Non -Buildable Area - Under section 6.606 of the South Burlington zoning ordinance the Planning Commission shall review projects with lots in restricted areas according to subcriteria a through d. Our review of the official zoning map showing developable area and restricted area indicates the official map is inaccurate, in that it shows a stream on the Dubois property that does not exist. It further shows a wetland area that is not accurate. Our lot layout has taken into account streams, wetlands, wetlands buffers. scenic view corridors, the natural topography, access to pedestrian easements, and open space. We have avoided wetlands completely. We have preserved scenic views and the airport approach cone. We have set aside open space and provided a pedestrian easement to adjacent lands. All lots conform to zoning requirements. The open space can be used for agriculture, gardening, or fruit crops. All lots will be served by City P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 water and sewer. We have designed permanent erosion controls and temporary erosion controls to prevent sedimentation. 4. C.O. Zone - See the report on wetlands. 5. Lot size/Frontage - We have revised the drawings to provide a minimum lot frontage of 85 ft. on all lots, and a minimum 12,000 s.f. Lot setbacks are shown on the plan. 6. Recreation path/pedestrian trail - The pedestrian trail is shown as an easement on the plans with a fence between the appropriate lots. The easement is relocated between lots 66 and 67. We have done traffic study that concludes the project will not create unsafe conditions and done not require any special modifications to handle the traffic. The streets have been designed to City standards. We have provided access to adjacent property. 7. Landscaping - Two street trees per lot have been added to the plans. Assuming the trees mature to 40 ft. the highest tree would be elevation 384. The allowable elevation is 412.5 in the view protection zone. 8. Senic View Protection Zone - Section 22.50 provides for the North Hinesburg Road View Protection Zone. No structure shall exceed elevation 393.5 ft. plus 5.8 ft. per 1000 ft. from Hinesburg road. The lots in question are 3300 ft. from Hinesburg Road. This computes to an elevation of 412.5 ft. For a home 35 ft. in height the maximum height will be 389 ft. which is within the allowable for the zone. 9. Wetlan s - We have delineated wetlands according to The 1989 Manual for Delineating Wetlands and the VT. Wetland Rules and provided a 50 ft. buffer. Please refer to the attached wetlands report. 10. Sewer - We are requesting sewer allocation for 19100 gpd including infiltration. This is based on 40 lots. 11. Traffic - A traffic study has been completed and is attached. The traffic study concludes that sight distances are adequate and signals are not warranted. The intersection will operate at level of service C with stop control on the side streets. An accident evaluation of the present location indicates the site is not a high accident location. 12. Light - We have added street lighting locations to the plans. 11. Mail box location. - We have added a mail box cluster location to the plan. Page 3 13, Legal documents - We will submit sample draft legal documents prior to the hearing on Sept. 10, 1996. 14. PUD Criteria - Section 26.151 of the Zoning Regulations provide for general standards to be met for new developments: a. The project is designed with detention basins to store and treat stormwater collected off the paved roads. The basins will be cleaned of sediments annually. The stormwater is discharged prior to the wetlands buffer. 1) Sewage is collected and discharged to the municipal treatment plant. 2) The project site is at elevation 338 to 350. None of the lots is within a floodplain or floodway. 3) The roadway crosses a wetland buffer. A C.U.D. has been applied for through the State. All the houses are located outside a 50 ft. buffer from the wetland. 4) A stormwater discharge permit will be applied for. No air pollution permit is required. b. The project water demand is 19,100 gpd which will be supplied by C.W.D. through the So. Burlington Water Department. c. During construction a number of erosion control devises will be installed to prevent erosion. These include silt fences, haybale check dams, stabilized access and inlet protection to the stormwater system. Permanent protectors are seeding, the installation of the stormwater basins and landscaping. d. A traffic study is attached to this report. It concludes that the addition of 40 new lots will not cause unsafe conditions or congestion. A left turn lane will be constructed on Route 116. e. The City has indicated that educational services can be provided at Central school. f. The project will be served by the municipal water, sewer and street departments as well as the fire departments. These departments have reviewed the plans and we have incorporated their comments into the project. g. We have designed the project to avoid wetlands, the airport approach cone, scenic view protection zones, and we have set aside substantial open space within the project. An easement for recreation path is incorporated into the project. Page 4 h. There are no rare and irreplaceable natural areas or historic sites on the project. The project is compatible with the existing Ledgeknoll residential development. i. Open space has been set aside in the amount of 33 acres more or less. j. All streets and utility systems have been laid out according to South Burlington design standards. k. We have reserved a 60 ft. r.o.w. for extension to land east of the site. A recreation easement has been reserved to the north. Water and sewer lines are suitable for extention. 1. The project conforms to the density and lot size for this zone and conforms to plans for providing housing within South Burlington to support the burgeoning population. Recommendations in the Town Plan call for promoting residential development, which preserves open space and protect view corridors and natural areas in the southeast quadrant. ( page 97 of Town Comprehensive Plan.). I have reviewed the comments made by neighbors at the April planning commission hearing and feel that all of the objections have been addressed by my comments above. The comments relating to traffic, safety, and potentially disastrous effects from our proposal are not supported by factual information. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler art, P.E. l I 03/12/96 09:47 a 8028620642 r of .► Pant.W N 1 7611 Date pege� p�ufll TO n0joept. Pl,ona r Phono r nLQ FaK M June 9, 1993 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner 575 Doroct Strcct South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe, In reference to our land behind LGiJyC Kttvll vtt Hirtebbury R<?Ad in Sout11 Bur, itiyl.t,tt. T dc) irti'r.T'd tc1 purr,ue sLit. — division of this parce;i art the relatively I-jeaj- CuLur.u. Our concern it; accc:,C. t u L hQ. pl upui- L y . lie }lave always left a 60 foot right of way to adjoining properties as part of i:ho approval proce�;*. We would cxl.)ec:L thaL this be tzikon into c:ortaiaciatiur, by thu youth Durlington Planning Commission when 1'GViGWinq Llte Giuut► Aureb sub- division. Thank you for your consideration in this m<attex. Sin rely, Homer J, . DUBC,1 8 HLD/lb - 16- �) Street ,logs _ Strer_t jogs With center line offsets of than 200 (•!et. shall not a 110 %4-:d , S) Street Names - Streets Shall be identified by name on the proposed plat. Proposed streets which are o5v iously in alignment With other:, already "istino and named shall bear the Of existing streets. In no case shall t1le naves for proposed streets duplicate existing street names ;+ithin .the local zip code district irrespective of the suffix, be it street, avenues boul-zvard, drive -.,ray, Place or court. ` 6) Street Signs - :',11 street lions and posts shall be provie`d and installed by the City at the expense of the subdivider. 7) Cul-de-Sac - A cul-de-sac is a dead end street, is in a turn around at one end and a secondary or major street at the other, which is not intersected by any other streets or ways. Cul-de-sac _ streets* shall be Dermitted only in residen- tial districts and the length of a cul-de- ? sac shall excee en times the minimum r invgolved lot Afrontane the _district (s �„_ The number of owellina units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets shar- ing a common single access to 6 major or secondary street shall not exceed 50 unless additional connections to other streets a_p aP:Jr0Ved by the Plcnning Commission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner. 8) -Access - adequate provisions shall be-, made for the regulation of general traffic access to the proposed subdivision or development. Entrance and exits for motorized vehicles shall be designee to facilitateJsmooth traffic floe, controlled and coordinated turning movements, and minimize`h�zards to pedestrians. Further-,* paved access for emergency vehicle: �ha 1 1 h,r 1�rovid,�d Lo within 100 feet oC the principal entry for Multi -family dwellings, and co„n� ,;.rcial, indu.,. rial, and institutional esta-blis)L-nent All street and highways sha 11 1r.! of sufficient width and suitable grade In(' shall be so locat^--d to facilitate fire pto_ tection and coordinates' so as to compose a convenient system prol)c�rly related to the plan. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ►.+.AY 21, 1984 Mrs. Maher did not like the 4 parking spacee jr, front. Mr. Poger Suggested that that area be graveled and grKt+ned and the sj,acoa pdvad lator if it proved they were needed. Kr. Fitzpatrick wondered if this could be eoneldf,.•od a multiple urie, since there will be retail al,uc:e plus apace for ar,cill.nry used such as Storage, but was told it was not considered a, multiF,lcuse. Me. Bechtel raid the Commiaoion had to deoide wl,ettjar to use ITF, traffic counts, or other estimates, such ua local data. Mr. Poger laic, he would like to have traffic information presented tonight, but have another meeting so the public could study the traffic information the Commission has on the proiact. Ya. Bechtel said Fitepatrick-Llewellyn had studied 6 retail etore(3 in the area. They had fait that the I'1F, category of ep90ialty retail cer.terB was riot applicable, so they took some counts of their c►rn. :'hey oliD,inated the !-,if, ani c,., 4Soreo, and crams up with an rallowublb Gquara footage of 6682. The city req,,,,-L,tod conc+ultant David Spitz to review the study and he remponded tijut he i'n.lt there sh,:uld ba sone Seaaonkl adjuotmont, which could bring t1,o mazicum allowable apace to 6309 sq. ft. ITS figureu would al:.- a size of 4,111,137 eq. ft. She noted thht these were osti;rates, and were not aLsolutea. Mr. Roger Dickinson of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn said they did not argue with Mr. Spite, but he noted that they had done the count© on higher than average traffic level days within the wea'E, if not at the high traffic so&ao.,. Mr. Jacob moves to 2vit!nuo-th{, hearin& on the_eite fan rev ew fir ef: llyit� for tx� w©ak���until _,Tune 1',�t�At�Ofail_ Mahor seconded the motion and all voted for it. w Rtblio i}oaring on Final �d�e mollAA,nii.cation_for m Hoer end Kari�-I)unfui: , A 5? ein�n`t�.ail� unit, l�inxied _develop�aent�_ard_.'�;i�acreA Zeserved forutu fre uss, located off Hinenhure Road Mr. Trudell represented the L,,bois family. He skid there had been c, n i, change in layout, but they had bean unable to reach an agreerent on a Sorer eaoement with Mr, Goodrich, so they will have to run the newer to Hineraburg Road and then north and into, the 4; :el aaee:as;n t . The only other ar o tbone raaqu6atnd by the Cos -mission at the laot hearing. Thn homew will 116 clustered and Bozo land left open for agricultural .so, The vat+,r zkin will be extended south from its presont location, and storm drainage will be on - site. Stroet, trees will oa planted. The rondo will be 30' wi.ie with curbe� and aidewe.iks on one Bide. They will. be city streets. 1. err;t,f.+cti. to Highland Ter race is shown, and additional screening from tho Toutrant ;alict iP shorn. Yr. Trudell hsked that the phaaing schedule be clanged to allow 40 unit8 in Lite firut ph&r3e. They want to build over 2 yearE, instead of the originally planned. Srobion control v,ae diacussod and 11-!r. Cobb rc,tur. that they would not strip all the land at one time. It vub noted that tho figure for intersection aignallizr,tion contribution was in dispute arid MB. l,echtel said she would double cheok it. Mr. Jacob moved t�iat tha �,,,. L th HurlinKLon,�lan�iir:X_Coiami.Rxaior,_��rc�vH the revised Final Plat_ar- licatian b firmer & Marie Dubois_ for a Plax:ned Unit evelo meat ee :d!tpipted on a 2 �a •e ,lru; entitled "Led •e Knol>^Planna Gait _ Deyelopmen - _ _____t dated 11 16 £3 and reviae_d 12 30 a3 and 1 ly�'42 _as prekwred~by Trudell ConaultinEngia?F.S with the f _ �� _.� .___.. o11ow� Stipulation$ 1. The lire eot ie_a roved_based on the followin�h&airiR_schodulo: - Phane lI 1965-E3b T_ 17 lots r v P PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 1984 2. Lots will be cleared on a phased schedule and erosion control measures will be agreed upon by the City Planner. 3. That the concerns of the City Engineer memo dated 25/84) be addressed prior to permit. 4. That a performance bond of $30,000 for landscaping and an appropriate bond for streets, water and sewer, to be determined by the City Engineer and City Planner, be posted prior to permit. - _ 5. That a recreation fee of S200 per unit, totalling $11,400 be paid on a per unit phasing schedule. 6. That building setbacks will not be less than 30' in front, 10' on sides and 30' in the rear. 7. That Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive after 50 uni.ts. 8. That project II (condominiums) be submitted with a connector street to the Goodrich property and that a second southerly access be prpvidedc _ 9. That the open space which will be held in common by landowners after the condominium units are built, and any residual development rights in the_ first phase of 57 lots and upon development of the remaining 53 acres, be deeded to the City. 10. That the applicant pay for signal improvements at Hinesburg Road_ and Kennedy Drive an amount to be determined by the City Planner. 11. That a stop sign be placed at Dubois Avenue for traffic exiting onto Hinesburg Road. 12. A bill of sale will be issued to the City for force main sewer and water line within the Hinesburg Road right-of-way rior to issu ncQ of bili-idizz- permits. 13. This approval will expire 3 years from this date. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion. Mr. Cobb noted that the applicant would just as soon deed the open land as well as the development rights to the city, in J9. Ms. Bechtel said the stipulation was intended to do two things. The open land would be held by the landowners, but the city wanted the development rights. Mr. Cobb said that when the back land was developed, they intended to deed the open land, the agricultural corridor and the wooded area to the Association. Until then, they want to keep the land other than the lots sold, in the Dubois name. It was noted that when the development was complete, the single-family lots would have an interest only in their own lots, while the condominium owners would have rights on the open space. Future development rights, such as those which would occur if the land were re -zoned, would be deeded to the city. The motion carried with all voting aye. Other business Ms. Bechtel said that she had been contacted by Queen City Park and Fire District #1 people. They want to have a public hearing sponsored by a city Memorandum - September 10, September 6, Page 2 Planning 1996 agenda items 1996 I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the request to allow the driveways serving the outside units of the Cluster C Dorset Park Condominiums to be widened as depicted on the plan entitled, "Cluster C Dorset Park Condominiums", dated September, 1996. 2) TIMBERLAKE ASSOCIATES - CONVENIENCE STORE - SITE PLAN This application was continued from the August 27, 1996 meeting in order to allow staff an opportunity to draft a Findings of Fact and Decision to deny the application (see enclosed). The primary reason for denial is that the application does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Overlay District. The project as designed does not result in a net improvement in traffic flow in the vicinity and therefore does not justify a waiver from the requirements of this District. The Decision also states that the proposed exit onto Williston Road results in unsafe traffic conditions and therefore does not comply with Section 26.102(a). A motion, regardless of whether it is to approve or deny, requires 4 affirmative votes in order to pass. Therefore, before making a motion, the Planning Commission should take a straw vote in order to make sure there are 4 votes to deny. If not, then a motion should be made to approve. If there are not 4 votes to approve, the application is denied. 3) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT This project was continued from the August 13, 1996 meeting in order to give staff an opportunity to draft a Findings of Fact & Decision to deny the application. Since that meeting, the applicant submitted a revised plan and additional information to address the concerns of the Planning Commission (see letter from Tyler Hart dated 9/5/96 and related information). The additional information includes a wetlands impact report, a traffic analysis, and a report addressing compliance with the PRD criteria. Since this information was submitted last Thursday, the Regional Planning Commission and City's Natural Resources Committee will not be able to review it and provide comment prior to Tuesday's meeting. V, Memorandum - Planning September 10, 1996 agenda items Sepember 6, 1996 Page 3 For the most part, it appears that the applicant has been able to adequately comply with the zoning and subdivision standards, with the exception of the second access issue. The applicant has submitted some additional information which supports their earlier statements regarding Highland Terrace as a second access. The fact remains the same, however, that they are proposing to serve 92 residential units with a system of streets sharing a common single access. This is not in compliance with Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations. Enclosed is a Findings of Fact & Decision to deny primarily for not meeting the second access requirement. 4) JOHN LARKIN, INC., - ELIMINATE DUPLEX AND ADD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - REVISED FINAL PLAT This project consists of amending a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 120 multi -family units and 37 single family units. The amendment consists of: 1) adding one (1) additional single family dwelling on Keari Lane, and 2) reducing the number of multi -family units in "Cluster C" on Bay Crest Road by two (2) units. The sketch plan was reviewed on 6/11/96 (minutes enclosed). KEARI LANE LOT This property is located northwesterly of 22 Keari Lane and lies within the R2 and CO Districts. It is bounded on the north by recreation land owned by the City, on the east by Keari Lane and a residence, and on the west by multi -family dwellings. Access: Access will be via a 20 foot curb cut on Keari Lane. Setbacks: The proposed dwelling will meet the R2 side yard setback requirement but will not meet the PRD perimeter setback requirement of 50 feet. Section 26.154(d) of the zoning regulations prohibits structures within the PRD perimeter setback. The applicant is proposing that the PRD setback be waived for this lot as it was for the other single family lots. C.O. District: Most of the lot to be developed lies within the C.O. District. The dwelling is being proposed in a small section which is not in the C.O. District but will be very close to this 3 Ie I I 0 Z SUMMER ICE JOINT LENTURES, INC uAAx \ alwuNcmV. rr. i ] I I % I I I I '14p\ I I I A aAanorw. ,5� I i li cNl 7ty.\ I i 1 \ ® I'I o1'ofS�c \ � .-• I i�C.Q ONE � I \ III AIRPORT I : APPROACH CONE © _ raPurr Nome vc _____________ 1 I............ ........ 1 1 O BOUNDARY AND OF GEYELO•ARI , © ' 11 OPEN SPACE AAIRAc CITY v"`sa 7H ""NG R.a wrw An I 1 332 ACRES t ZBNING MAP AINE lea' n IO`L N. 11 (gES1N cw AREA WETLAND BOUNDARY _ y! 91 O 28 I ,. N q.a01a .N 01.9IAY � // // /• -' It I 30 so.'pnMwcmµ rr. I / r Vl A VI. I D. WESSEL m eWWMtlimA n. 15'PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AUG 0 5 1996 City of So. Burlington AWJS DRIVE 4P ® /7 e. �.% MEILANO BIX/NDAR' 99 OPEN SPACE 17 ACRES t Co. ZONE GREEN ACRES INC Wi ILANUS DELINEATION WAS MADE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO THE ROUTINE ON -SITE METHOD IN *FEDERAL MANUAL FOR IDENTIFYING AND DELINEATING JURIDICTIONAL WETLANDS-, JANUARY 1989, BY JOINT INSPECTION W77H VERMONT WETLANDS COORDINATOR, CATHY OBRIEN, ON MARCH 19, 1996, ELEVATIONS BASED ON U.S.G.S. DATUM. NO STRUCTURE WITHIN THE HINESBURG ROAD NORTH SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION DISTRICT IS TO EXCEED AN ELEVATION OF 39J.5 AS CALLED FOR IN SECTION 22.50 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS. DENSITY CALCULATIONS - ZONE SEO (PRD) 1.2 UNITS PER ACRE x 85.9e ACRES fOJ UNITS MAXIMUM tOJ UNITS - 57 UNIT5 - 46 UHM LOTS ARE MINIMUM IZOOO SF. RECORD OWNER HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS 1405 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON. VT. 05401 Gaphk scale Peet 100 0 100 200 300 400 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. u Bid& Pads Row Box 306 VJMbtoo, Vt OU" ft* 67"01 L B PrOlfttt LOG uAGD1W C S LQ2RECTSIREET NAME G9/GT/Y6 SLM QO ORr9iN— DItAWTNC 5/3 /aa SLN 0 DeacAptlon Dab 6y Propct aft LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. s,..t tm. MASTER SITE PLAN PToWl n Mlbw 85083S3 Ut, I Pmw,t r1lwww JRI Drawn SUJ Dab 6/3/96 Scam r-100' A nwnd SPI M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Next.week's agenda items Date: 1/6/84 1) O'Brien -Business Park North, Lot #8 The report from North Country Planning (David Spitz) was reviewed by Dr. Oppenlander, a copy of his findings are enclosed. The report does not place much detail on the 2800 square foot office complex. The use will be general office area with real estate occupancy in part of the building. General office buildings generate 12.3 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1000'g.s.f. of building area and 3.59 average weekday vehicle trip ends per employer. Office building - generated trips peak at the same time as adjacent street traffic (7 to 9 A.M. and 4 to 6 P.M.) The applicants attorney represented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on October 17, 1983 a willingness to provide access to Kimball Avenue. I strongly suggest that a second access be considered by the Planning Commission. fi This office agrees with Attorney Schmucker that the use is grandfathered under the original P.C.D. development of Business Park Noth approval May 23, 1978. At that time traffic data submitted by Bruce Houghton projected around 20 average weekday vehicle trip ends for lot #8. Other than the Palmer office complex none of the other lots are developed however, I understand some have been sold. It has been suggested that if and when other lots are developed the Planning Commission could require access off Kimball Avenue to lot #8, I suggest by that time it will be to late. 2) Homer and Marie Dubois-; Hinesburg Road Enclosed is Dr. Oppenlander's review of the traffic report submitted by Trudell Engineering. The major issue would be the installation of a three-phase signal control with left turn movement from Hinesburg Road on a separate phase. A section of the subdivision regulations provides that not more than 50 units be served by a cul-de-sac or a common single access to a major or secondary street. This proposal does not conform to that provision, 57 units are pro- posed. After discussing this with the City Engineer and the fact that this is a five (5) year project I suggest that the street layout is acceptable providing the following conditions are satisfied. 1) that phase IT of this project not be submitted until connector street are completed to the Goodrich property. 2) that a second access be provided to Van Sicklen Road. 3) that Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive. The recreation fee should be paid according to the phasing schedule, the total fee being $11,400, prior to issuing any permits the fee would be $200 per unit. This S TITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNrYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLIWrON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVEN F. STJI"I.EL PAM R. PAGE• JOSF.PH S. M&FAN TIMOTIIY M. EUSTACE (•ALSO "WrrEl) IN N.Y.) (802) 660-2555 (VOICEnnn) FAX (802) 660-2552 October 17, 1996 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 149 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-4201 Re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Dear Judy: I have enclosed, for filing with the Court, my Entry of Appearance relative to the above -referenced matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Pseph MSMcLean JSM/maf Enclosure cc: Robert J. Perry, Esq. Raymond J. Belair SON3127.COR #96-4260 OF COUNSEL AR'DIUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERTF..FLETCHER STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL COURT THE DECISION OF THE ) DOCKET NO. E96-166 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING ) COMMISSION ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES JOSEPH S. MCLEAN, of the firm of Stitzel & Page, P.C., and hereby enters his appearance in the above -referenced matter by and on behalf of the City of South Burlington. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 17th day of October, 1996. SON380 A I T #96-4230 STITZP.L &PAGE. P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 RKTTER.Y STREET RUMLINGTON, VERMONT05101 STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. Attorneys for the City of South Burlington (, zl_� By: 4jq/tA Jo ph S. McLean STEVEN V STP ZEL PATTI R. PAGE' JOSEPII S. MCLEAN TiMOT11Y M. EUSTACE (•Al %O ADMrrtv) INKY.) STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171BATTERYSTREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VE.RMONI' 05402-1507 (802). 660-2555 (VOICIVIDD) PAX (802) 660-2552 October 17, 1996 Robert J. Perry, Esq. Perry & Schmucker P.O. Box 2323 1480 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05407-2323 Re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois Docket No. E96-166 Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 76(e), as amended effective July 1, 1996, I am providing you with a list of interested persons relative to the above -referenced matter. me. OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E. FLETCHER If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Si c rely, seph S. McLean JSM/maf Enclosure cc: Raymond J. Belair SON3126.COR PLANNER 658- 7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 October_ 8, 1996 .a OCT .1.1 1096 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Joe McLean, Esquire Stitzel & Page, PC P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507 Re: Appeal of Horner & Marie Dubois Dear Joe: The following is a list of interested persons to the above referenced matter: Tyler Hart Carl Cobb William Fead Michael Schaal John Hood Larry Brainard Scott Pennington Ralph Mitchell Bonnie Finnigan Dorothy & William Fisk John Gemery Ernie Nalette Heins & Sandra Valenta If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ely, Raym J. Belair, Zon'n and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp 1 Encl VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT October 15, 1996 In Re: Appeal of Homer and Marie Dubois (802) 828-3192 149 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-4201 Environmental Court docket number E96-166 has been assigned to the above - referenced planning commission appeal. The notice of appeal was filed with the City of South Burlington on October 7, 1996, and received at the Environmental Court on October 101 1996. Please use the Environmental Court docket number when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case. Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure No. 74 and 76(e), as amended, set out the procedures to follow in this appeal, including the following: 1) A person filing the appeal is called an "appellant". Appellant has thirty (30) days from the date the notice of appeal was filed to file with this Court the statement of questions required by V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B). This statement should be specific because it will govern the scope of the appeal. 2) V.R.C.P. 76(e), as amended effective July 1, 1996, requires the clerk of the City of South Burlington planning commission to provide to the appellant a list of all interested parties, with instructions to serve notice upon the interested parties that the appeal has been filed and to give them the address of this Court to allow them to participate in the case here. We request that the City send to the Court a copy of the list of interested parties it provided to the appellant. The appellant must send a copy of its notice to interested parties to this Court. Within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, we request that the appellant also send us a list of the people who received the appellant's notice to interested parties. (Note: Appellant's counsel is hereby referred to the amendment to V.R.C.P. 76(e), as set out above, with regard to the shift of responsibility for notifying the interested parties of the appeal.) 3) A person with standing to oppose the appeal is called an "appellee". Appellees have twenty (20) days from the date the appellant serves them with the notice that the appeal has been filed, to file their entry of appearance (request to participate) with this Court. Failure to file an appearance within this time may result in the case proceeding to a merits hearing without them. All parties who are participating in this case are responsible for sending copies of their court filings to the other parties. The case will be ready for hearing when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired. The Court may extend that time if requested by written motion. The Clerk of the Court will contact the parties to arrange for a pre -hearing telephone conference with Judge Merideth Wright, and the case will be set for a merits hearing to be held in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that under 24 VSA 4471(a) these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make them on the record. Sincerely, udith C. Whitney, Clerk Environmental Court Copies to: Robert J. Perry, Esq. Joseph S. McLean, Esq. Mark Crow, Clerk, South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 8, 1996 Joe McLean, Esquire Stitzel & Page, PC P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507 Re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The following is a list of interested persons to the above referenced matter: Tyler Hart Carl Cobb William Fead Michael Schaal John Hood Larry Brainard Scott Pennington Ralph Mitchell Bonnie Finnigan Dorothy & William Fisk John Gemery Ernie Nalette Heins & Sandra Valenta If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc Ra Zo RJB/mcp 1 Encl ly, 'J. Belair, and Planning Assistant City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 8, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the September 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in erel , 1 Jo Weith, Ci Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 7 1996 Joe McLean, Esquire Stitzel & Page, PC P.O. Box 1507 Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507 Re: Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois, Ledgeknoll Phase III Dear Joe: Enclosed please find the following documents: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 1) Original Notice of Appeal of Homer & Marie Dubois' preliminary plat denial received on October 7, 1996. 2) Check in the amount of $150 made out to the Vermont Environmental Court. Please forward the Notice of Appeal and check to the Environmental Court and enter an appearance on behalf of the City. If you need additional information, please let me know. Since'roly, Ra o J. Belair, Zoni and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp 1 Encl HOMER DUBOIS and MARIE DUBOIS V. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME Homer Dubois and Marie Dubois, by and through their attorneys, Perry & Schmucker, and, pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 4461(a), hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission dated September 10, 1996, which decision denied subdivision approval for a 42 lot subdivision. The subject property contains 32.89 acres of land situated on Dubois Drive. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 4th day of October, 1996. REC.1 CL) 0 C T 0 7 1996 City of So. Burlington PERRY & SCHMUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1480 WILLISTON ROAD P. O. BOX 2323 SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT OS407 PERRY & SCHMUCKER By: obert J. Pe , Esq. PERRY & SCHMUCKER 1480 WILLISTON ROAD P.O. BOX 2323 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05407 PAYCO —Q— 'fl - '�.-S-l� TO THE ORDER OF DATE INVOICE AMOUNT 58-6/116 16746 Qc`� _ "\ 199� "'X �" z v DOLLARS $ \5 O Q O SHELBURNE VILLAGE OFFICE ���xx uc�een.cK SHELBURNE, VT II'0 16 ?4611' 1:0 i 160006 21: lI' 1-60ul 146 PERRY & SCHMUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1480 WILLISTON ROAD P. O. BOX 2323 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05407 TELEPHONE: (802) 863-4558 ROBERT J. PERRY TELECOPIER: (802) 862-0937 LEGAL ASSISTANTS RONALD C. SCHMUCKER LAURIE A. STGELAIS -- NANCY L. BENSON ELIZABETH F. NOVOTNY October 4, 1996 Mark Crow, Clerk South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Homer & Marie Dubois Dear Mr. Crow: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal for Homer and Marie Dubois. Pursuant to Rule 76 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the clerk's obligation to serve notice of the appeal upon all interested parties and to transmit a copy of the Notice of Appeal to the Clerk of the Environmental Court as provided in Rule 3(e) of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,~ Robert J Perry, Esq. RJP/nlb Enclosures �i printed on recycled paper City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 16, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the Planning Commission's decision relative to the above referenced application. This decision was rendered at their September 10, 1996 meeting. If you have any questions, please give me a call. icere r' J Weith, Ci y Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 16, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the August 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. ery 1. I J Weith) C' y Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Preliminary Comments October 26, 1993 agenda items Date: October 8, 1993 LEDGEKNOLL PHASE III - HINESBURG ROAD 1. Official map designates a recreation path along the southerly boundary of this development. 2. There should be a 60 foot r.o.w. for access to the property to the east. 3. The Green Acres property, to the north, has a pedestrian easement along their southerly boundary access to this easement should be provided in the vicinity of lots 22 and 23. 4. The intersection of Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive should be improved to accommodate these additional 68 lots. 5. This development will be served by the sewage pumping station at the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac. From this station sewage is pumped westerly to Hinesburg Road then northerly to approximately the Lane Press entrance drive and then easterly to a pumping station along the interstate highway. This pumping station is located almost directly north (4,200 ' +/-) from the Dubois Drive station. 6. Capacity of sewage pumping stations, force mains, and gravity lines that will be used by this development will have to be evaluated. This evaluation must be all the way to the large pumping station along Williston Road. 7. The water supply, especially for fire protection, must be evaluated. NORM CHAPPELL 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - WILLISOTN ROAD 1. Lot 2 should have the option to connect to the City sewer that crosses the rear of lot 1 anywhere it is convenient. 2. Plan prepared by Trudell Engineering dated 8/20/93 is acceptable. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Joe Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 September 9, 1996 RE: Ledgeknoll Phase III Traffic Impact Report Dear Joe: 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 802 658-3004 Per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced traffic analysis. I discussed my initial questions with Tyler Hart at Trudell Engineering and have the following comments: The methodology used to determine AM and PM peak hour volumes should be revised. The accepted methodology is to perform manual turning movement counts at the study intersection, adjust these ground counts for seasonal variations to design hour volumes, and then add expected traffic generated from the proposed development to these base numbers. The impact study should include an analysis five years beyond the expected buildout of the 40 units. This impact study uses the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual software to perform a level of service analysis on the VT 116 and Dubois Drive intersection. The level of service analysis is incorrect because left and right turn traffic volumes are not included and the proposed left turn lane on southbound VT 116 is missing Please call if you have any questions. ely, ph Segale Transportation Engineer cc: Tyler Hart, Trudell Engineering ... Serving the Municipalities of .. . Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road PO Box 308 Williston, VT 05495 To: Joe Weith WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Specifications ❑ Attached ❑ Prints ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: 09/10/96 Project' 85083 Attention: Re: ❑ Under separate cover the following items: ❑ Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Samples El COPIES DATE NO. I DESCRIPTION 1 JAm and Pm Highway Capacity Report for Ledgeknoll THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment REMARKS: ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints Joe: I reworked the intersection analysis per Joe Segale's comments. The calculations are for year 2001 with southbound left turn lane on Route 116. Project traffic is 40 units added to existing traffic I counted in April. My short counts are adjuxted for monthly factor. Copied to: Signed: Tyler Hart P.E. Center For Microconputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 FileName ................ Streets: (N-S) ROUTE 116 Major Street Direction.... Length of Time Analyzed... Analyst................... Date of Analysis.......... Other Information......... 85083AM.HCO NS 60 (min) TYLER HART 8/16/96 FULL DEVELOPMENT OF Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ------------------------------------------ Northbound Southbound L T RI L T R ---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (o) SU/RV's (o) CV's M PCE's ------------ 1> l< 1 N 2 696 4 .95 .95 .95 -3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .9 1 1 l< 1 N 14 213 9 .95 .95 .95 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 --------------- 1.4 1.4 (E-W) DUBOIS DRIVE BUTLER FARMS AND LEDGEKNOLL Eastbound L T R ---- ---- ---- 1> 1< 1 28 0 5 .95 .95 .95 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------- Adjustment Factors ---------------- Westbound L T R ---- ---- ---- 1> l< 1 14 0 71 .95 .95 .95 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 696 213 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 615 1080 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 615 1080 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.87 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major Street -------------------------------------------------------- SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 700 222 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 795 1344 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 795 1344 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.97 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 Step 3: TH from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 934 929 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 353 355 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 343 345 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 928 965 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 307 292 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.85 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 299 247 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement -------- v(pcph) ------ Cm(pcph) ------ Csh(pcph) ------ Delay ------------ LOS ------ By App --------- EB L 32 247 > > > 281 14.8 C 14.8 EB R 6 1080 > > > WB L 17 299 > > > 521 8.5 B 8.5 WB R 83 615 > > > NB L 2 1344 2.7 A 0.0 SB L 21 795 4.7 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 1.2 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) ROUTE 116 Major Street Direction.... Length of Time Analyzed... Analyst................... Date of Analysis.......... Other Information......... Two-way Stop -controlled In, f Northbound L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC' s ( o ) SU/RV's (o) CV's M PCE's ------------ 0> 1< 0 N 3 264 8 .95 .95 .95 -3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85083PM.HCO (E-W) DUBOIS DRIVE NS 60 (min) TYLER HART 8/16/96 FULL DEVELOPMENT OF BUTLER FARMS AND LEDGEKNOLL :errection Southbound L T R 1 1< 0 N 82 600 34 .95 .95 .95 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1.4 1.4� ---------------- Eastbound Westbound L T RI L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 0> 1< 0 0> l< 0 18 0 2 4 0 46 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 95 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 1.1 ---------------- Adjustment Factors -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 ---------------- 1 1.1 Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 268 617 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1013 674 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1013 674 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street -------------------------------------------------------- SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 272 634 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1272 855 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1272 855 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.91 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 987 974 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 331 336 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.90 0.90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 299 303 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 971 993 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 290 282 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.90 0.90 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92 0.92 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.88 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 267 247 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement -------- v(pcph) ------ Cm(pcph) ------ Csh(pcph) ------ Delay ------------ LOS By App EB L 21 247 > > ------ > --------- 261 15.1 C 15.1 EB R 2 674 > > > WB L 4 267 > > > 847 4.6 A 4.6 WB R 53 1013 > > > NB L 3 855 4.2 A 0.0 SB L 120 1272 3.1 A 0.4 Intersection Delay = 0.8 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR LEDGEKNOLL III SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Prepared by: Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Developer: Homer and Marie Dubois Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Date: August 1996 Does\85083TF.SAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Purpose of Report I Project Description I Report Procedure I Existing Traffic I Project Traffic Distribution I Traffic Volumes 2 Left Turn Checks 3 Check Signal Warrants 4 Safety Evaluation 5 Unsignalized Intersection Performance Summary File AM Page 1-3 Unsignalized Intersection Performance Summary File PM Page 1-3 Conclusions 6 Level of Service Descriptions 7 Glossary 8 References 9 Accident Summary Appendix PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to evaluate the traffic impact of the addition of 40 residential lots at Dubois Drive and Route 116 in South Burlington, Vermont. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site entrance is located at the intersection of U.S. Route 116 and Dubois Drive. Swift Street. This entrance is the one presently serving phase I and II of Ledgeknoll, which is a residential subdivision. REPORT PROCEDURE The procedures used in this report are similar to those suggested in publications of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traffic counts were provided by the Vermont Agency of Transportation Two hour short counts were conducted at the Route 116/ Dubois Drive by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Project traffic was determined using the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual (Fifth Edition). Project traffic is based on 97 single family lots. EXISTING TRAFFIC Traffic on the existing street network, which will be impacted by this project, was determined from the Vermont Agency of Transportation counts and on counts done by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Based on our A.M. and P.M. peak hour counts, we determined that truck traffic was less than 5 percent of the peak hour traffic. Truck movements were therefore included with the vehicle movements. PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Traffic generated by the project was distributed on the existing street network by analogy to the patterns obtained from the traffic counts. Page 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC Site traffic will be generated by the creation of 40 single family lots. The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual (Fifth Edition) was used to develop traffic estimates for the project. Land Use Code 210 was used. The following table contains the estimated peak hour project traffic entering and exiting the site. These estimates assume the Butler Farms south access will be completed and 30% of Butler Farms traffic will use the south entrance as primary access. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC (Ledgeknoll III 97 Lots ) LAND USE CODE 210 A.M. Peak Hour entering (26%) 20 Trips exiting (74%) 59 Trips Total 79 Trip Ends P.M. Peak Hour entering (65%) 68 Trips exiting (35%) 37 Trips Total 105 Trip Ends ( Butler Farms 49 Lots) A.M. Peak Hour entering (26%) 11 Trips exiting (74%) 33 Trips Total 44 Trip Ends P.M. Peak Hour entering (65%) 37 Trips exiting (35%) 20 Trips Total 57 Trip Ends Page 2 LEFT TURN CHECK The left turns are 5 to 10% of advancing volumes. The procedure is to determine what would be the advancing volume for the percentage of turns. (ex. 61 /.10=610) Enter the curves for L= 10%, 50 mph, Va= 610, Vo- 249. Left turn is warranted for PM traffic southbound. Storage lane should be 100 ft. Check condition for both AM and PM southbound and northbound. A.M. 50 mph Va (modified) = 160 Left Turns = 16 Vo = 657 No left turn warranted A.M. Va (mod) = 40 Left turns = 2 Vo = 201 No left turn warranted Southbound Northbound Page 3 P.M. 50 mph Va (modified) =610 Left Turns = 61 Vo = 249 Left turn warranted S = 100 ft. P.M. Va (Mod) = 60 Left turns = 3 Vo 566 No left turn warranted CHECK SIGNAL WARRANT VOLUMES DUBOIS DRIVE/ROUTE 116 TIME SUM MAJOR MINOR WARRANT APPROACH (VEH) APPROACH (VEH) SATISFIED MORNING AWV Full Development 889 59 NO AFTERNOON AWV Full Development 920 37 NO In the absence of 12 hour counts the maximum average weekday volume is estimated based on the two hour counts conducted. It appears that minimum vehicle volumes are not met on the minor approach. Estimated volumes are compared to warrants for traffic signal installation pg. 4c-1 " Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices", 1988 edition. SAFETY EVALUATION Accident characteristics on Vermont Route 116 were analyzed for a distance of 0.10 mile on both sides of Dubois Drive. Traffic accidents, as presently listed in the State Highway Sorted Accident File for the five year period from 1990 through 1994, are summarized according to numbers, rates, causes, types, and severities. This section of a major collector in a rural area is not currently classified as a high accident location by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. A general guideline for the indication of a safety problem at the intersection or a short section of roadway is the average occurrence of five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period. The three mishaps that were reported over the five years result in a frequency of 0.80 accidents per year, which is less than the criterion for an accident prone situation. Another measure of relative safety is provided by a comparison of actual and critical accident experiences per one - million vehicle miles. Again the actual accident experience is below the critical value that is indicative of a safety problem. In general, causes of the reported traffic mishaps are attributable to driver errors. The accidents are not related to any elements of highway design and/or traffic control. Therefore, the study intersection is summarized as a non -accident-prone location. Speed may be a contributing factor in the severities of these accidents on this roadway section with a speed of 50 mph. Sight distances are adequate at the Dubois Drive/ Route 116 intersection. Page 5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** FileName ................ Streets: (N-S) ROUTE 116 Major Street Direction.... Length of Time Analyzed... Analyst................... Date of Analysis.......... Other Information......... 85083AM.HCO (E-W) DUBOIS DRIVE NS 60 (min) TYLER HART 8/16/96 FULL DEVELOPMENT OF BUTLER FARMS AND LEDGEKNOLL Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's M SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's ------------ Northbound L T R 0 1 0 N' 663 .95 -3 1 0 0 .9 Southbound L T R 0 1 0 N 226 .95 3 1 0 0 1.4 ---------------- Eastbound L T R 0 1 0 33 .95 -1 0 1 ---------------- Adjustment Factors Westbound L T R 0 1 0 59 .95 -1 1 0 0 1 ---------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 889 889 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 373 373 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 373 373 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.83 0.91 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) -------- ------ Cm(pcph) ------ Csh(pcph) Delay ------------------ LOS By App --------------- EB T 35 373 10.7 C 10.7 WB T 62 373 11.6 C 11.6 Intersection Delay = 1.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 FileName ................ Streets: (N-S) ROUTE 116 Major Street Direction.... Length of Time Analyzed... Analyst................... Date of Analysis.......... Other Information......... 85083PM.HCO (E-W) DUBOIS DRIVE NS 60 (min) TYLER HART 8/16/96 FULL DEVELOPMENT OF BUTLER FARMS AND LEDGEKNOLL Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's ------------ 0 1 0 N 259 .95 -3 1 0 0 .9 0 1 0 N 661 .95 3 1 0 0 1.4 ---------------- Adjustment Factors 0 1 0 0 1 0 Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 920 920 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 359 359 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 359 359 Prob. of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.89 0.94 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App -------- ------ ------ ------------------ --------------- EB T 21 359 10.7 C 10.7 WB T 39 359 11.2 C 11.2 Intersection Delay = 0.7 CONCLUSIONS The impact of Ledgeknoll III will result in a change of traffic levels at the project access driveway. Upon completion of the project the intersection of Dubois drive will become a four way intersection with the west leg serving Butler Farms. Evaluation of the intersection with full traffic impacts indicates the intersection will perform at level of service C. A left turn lane is warranted on the south bound Route 116 leg. Signals are not warranted. Sight distances are adequate. The intersection is not a high accident location. Page 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF STOPPED STOPPING RATIO OF TOTAL CRITICAL SERVICE DELAY N) SERVICE VOLUME MOVEMENT (sec/veh) TO CAPACITY (vph/lane) A <5.0 <50 0.00 - 0.45 - B 5.1-15.0 51-67 0.46-0.60 C 15.1 - 25.0 68 - 76 0.61 - 0.75 D 25.1 - 40.0 77 - 83 0.76 - 0.90 E 40.1 - 60.0 84 - 93 0.91 - 1.00 F >60.0 94 - 100 > 1.00 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF DELAY TO MINOR RESERVE CAPACITY SERVICE STREET TRAFFIC (pcph) A Little or no 400 B Short 300 - 399 C Average 200 - 299 D Long 100 - 199 E Very long 0 - 99 F Extreme - LEGEND sec/veh - seconds per vehicle vph/lane - vehicles per hour per lane pcph - passenger cars per hour Page 7 - (under) 1200 - (near) 1400 > 1400 (over) STOPPED DELAY (sec/veh) <9.0 9.0 -12.0 12.0 - 18.0 18.0 - 36.0 > 36.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIALS LEVEL OF QUALITATIVE AVERAGE LOAD RATIO OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION TRAVEL SPEED FACTOR SERVICE VOLUME (MPH) TO CAPACITY A Free flow > 30 0.0 < 0.60 B Stable flow > 25 < 0.1 < 0.70 (slight delay) C Stable flow > 20 < 0.3 < 0.80 (acceptable delay) D Approaching > 15 < 0.7 < 0.90 unstable flow E Unstable flow > 10 < 1.0 < 1.00 F Forced flow < 10 - - LEGEND MPH - miles per hour Page 8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - The average number of vehicles passing a specified point during a 24 hr. period. Some examples are as follows: Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADDT) - Denotes daily traffic averaged over one year. Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWDT) - Denotes that the specified period includes only weekday, Monday through Friday. Design Hourly Volume (DHV) - The 30th highest hourly volume of the year. Capacity - The maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. Capture Rate For Pass -By Traffic - Proportion of trips attached to the development from traffic normally passing -by the site. Gravity Model - A trip distribution technique. The gravity model is based on the hypothesis that the number of trips between two areas is directly related to the amount of activity in an area and inversely related to the spacial separation between the areas, represented as a function of travel time. Level Of Service (LOS) - A set of qualitative and quantitative criteria that describes the degree to which an intersection, roadway, weaving section or ramp efficiently serves peak hour and/or daily traffic. Peak Hour - The hour during which the maximum amount of traffic occurs. Sight Distance - The length of roadway ahead visible to the driver. The minimum sight distance available on a road should be sufficiently long to allow a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Traffic Assignment - The process of determining route or routes of travel and allocating the zone -to -zone trips to these routes. Trip - A single or one -direction vehicular trip with either the origin (outbound) or destination (inbound) or both inside the study area. Each trip has two trip ends. Trip Distribution - The process by which trips originating in one portion of the study area are distributed to the other portions of the study area. Page 9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Cont.) Trip End - A trip origin or a trip destination. Trip ends for a location are the summation of origins and destination. A trip has two ends, the origin and the destination. A site which has over some period of time, 2,000 trips entering and 1,800 trips leaving, has 3,800 trip ends associated with it. Trip Generation - Estimating the number of vehicle tips which may be generated by a specific building or land use. Page 10 REFERENCES 1. "Highway Capacity Manual, (Third Edition) 1994", Transportation Research Board, SR209, 1994. 2. "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", FHWA, 1988. 3. "Traffic Engineering Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers 2nd Edition, 1992. 4 "Trip Generation (Fifth Edition), An Informational Report", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. 5. "Volume Warrants For Left -Turn Storage Lanes At Unsignalized Intersections", M.D. Harmelink, Department of Highway, Ontario. 6. "Traffic Engineering Theory and Practice", Prentice -Hall, Louis J. Pignataro. 7. "State of Vermont Sign Post Design Guideline", Engineering and Construction Design division, A.O.T., 1986. 8. "State of Vermont Pavement Marking Placement Guide", Engineering and Construction Design Division, A.O.T., 1988. 9. Sample Plans For Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings, A.O.T., 1996. 10. Regression Analysis For Traffic Projection, A.O.T., 1995. H . Automatic Traffic Recorder Grouping Study, A.O.T., 1995. 12. "Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development", ITE, 1991. Page 11 r. ClLi��l���s�u (DO -In � -45;,,n-n1 P',ryYiz�zr,g co s �¢a 88 PEARL STREcT P.O. BOX ice E&SEXJUNCnGN. VERMONTO.,s53 802 65BI3004 Joe Weith, City Plarxner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 September 9, 1996 RE: Ledgelnoll Phase IU Traffic Impact Deport Dear Joe. - Per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced traffic analysis. I discussed my initial questions with Tyler Hart at Trudell Engineering and have the following comments: The methodology used to determine AM and PM peak hour volumes should be revised_ The accepted methodology is to perform manual turning movement counts at the study intersection, adjust these ground counts for seasonal variations to design hour volumes, and then add expected traffic generated from the proposed development to these base numbers. The impact study should include an analysis five years beyond the expected buildout of the 40 units. This impact study uses the 1994 Flighway Capacity Manual software to perform a level of service analysis on the VT 116 and Dubois Drive intersection_ The level of service analysis is incorrect because left and right turn traffic volumes are not included and the proposed left turn lane on southbound VT 116 is missing Please call if you have any questions. ely, ph Segale Transportation Engineer cc: Tyler Hart, Trudell En&eeri.ng , _ . serving the Munrapalrt C$ or_ . - 6011on Suiting= Cnadotte OoIC>7ester E-. sex Jurct,cn Flex Town Minesourg Muntingten Jercho Knon Richmond $t George Snernume So, BLdington Uneemtlt Wesdcrl: V4111i nn Winooski �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. August 27, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. Homer and Jackie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Ledge Knoll, Phase III - Wetland boundary and assessment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dubois: On August 19th I conducted a site visit to determine the limits of the wetland at the Ledge Knoll property in South Burlington. The project is located in an existing field, approximately 27 acres, and is adjacent to N.W.1. mapped wetlands to the west and south of the field. The westerly wetland is owned by yourself while the southerly wetland is on adjoining property. There is an existing farm road from the cul-de-sac to the project site in question. The proposed development includes moving the location of the road a maximum of 45 feet southerly and parallel to the existing farm road. The delineation was based on the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (FICWD, 1989). The methodology was the onsite routine method and the plant community assessment procedure. The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetland, 1988 for Vermont was used to classify the dominant vegetation of each strata. The weather was clear and 85 degrees. The last rainfall was 5 days earlier. The rainfall for August has been below normal, while the seasonal rainfall has been above normal significantly. The Soil Survey of Chittenden Count v published by the Soil Conservation Service lists the soils within the project area as Vergennes in the field, Coventry in the southeast corner and Livingston in the wooded wetland to the west. The field slopes gently to the west and the southeast. It has been planted with Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) with an understory of Common Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Old Field Cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex) and a Sedge (Carex spp.) The dominant vegetation is not hydrophytic, therefore the field isn't a wetland. The procedure I followed included choosing several representative observation plots outside the mowed field to determine the wetland boundary. First, the dominant vegetation and its classification were determined for each strata. If the vegetation was hydrophytic, then an examination of the soils was conducted using a soil auger. If the plot met both tests for wetland vegetation and soils, the hydrology was assumed to have been met also. There was no water observed at the bottom of any augured hole. If all three criteria were met the plot is considered within a wetland. Three different types of wetland were observed and are described below; P O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Entrance Road - The north side of the existing farm road is an emergent wetland dominated by Broad Leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia) and Green Bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens). Both plants are hydrophytic vegetation. The area immediately to the south of the road has been raised above the surrounding terrain and is dominated by two species of Goldenrod (Solidago altisima and canadensis). These plants aren't hydrophytic vegetation and therefore the road shoulder isn't a wetland. The land drops off quickly to the south into a wetland dominated by Northern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and a Sedge (Carex spp). No soil samples were taken due to the presence of obligate vegetation on the north side and obligate and facultative wet vegetation on the south side with an abrupt wetland boundary. West Ed-e - The west side of the field is a forested wetland, the edge of which is Northern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus), Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamus cathartica), Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum) and Late Goldenrod (Solidago gigantea). This area represents a transitional zone between the inundated wetland and the field. There is a small drainage that extends into the field that is a wetland due to the prevalence of moss. Soil samples were taken at the edge or within the forest. The sample near the north boundary was clay and was starting to gley (turn grey). Very bright soil was present at the bottom of the hole. The samples to the south were clay and somewhat moist with a low chroma (color). In general, the tree edge was used as the indicator of the wetland boundary. Southeast Corner - This area is characterized as a Scrub - Shrub Wetland. Approximately 10 years ago this corner was mowed but is not being mowed now and is reverting to a wetland. Saplings of Northern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) along with Silky Dogwood (Comus amomum) are the dominant types of vegetation. Soil samples were taken within the shrub area. The soil was clay and damp. The soil color was low to medium chroma. The density of Silky Dogwood and the prevalence of rushes (Juncus spp) was used as the indicator of the wetland boundary. The following are responses to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations concerning encroachment into the CO District (3.503); a. Ability to carry or store adequately flood waters - The wetlands on either side of the access road are significant for storm water runoff control. They are located in a saddle in flat terrain at a break between two watersheds and at the headwaters of Potash Brook. The two wetlands were probably connected prior to the construction of the existing farm roads. The wetlands flow from south to the north towards the Interstate. The south wetland has a relatively small watershed (10 acres) that drains into it. The proposed road will be raised approximately 2 1/2 feet above the existing farm road and a total of 5 feet above the elevation of the wetland. The depth of material is necessary to provide a culvert and the proper cover over the culvert. The impact to the south wetland will be .15 acres of fill material. In addition, the impact to the buffer will be .36 acres. The impact to the wetland will not be significant for storing flood water due to the relatively small impact compared to the size of the wetland. The culvert will be properly sized to provide for flood waters to be transported to the downstream wetland. b. Water quality y virtue of erosion or run-off- These wetlands are significant for enhancing the quality of the water by removal of nutrients from fertilizers, pesticides, grease and oil from vehicles. However, there is a limited amount of pollutants that reach the wetland from the existing land uses due to the limited use of the agricultural fields and the buffers those fields provide between the residences and the wetland. There will be silt fences placed along both sides of the proposed road at the base of the fill to contain possible erosion. All exposed banks will be seeded and mulched. The catch basin will have filter fabric placed under the rim during construction to catch sediment before the road is paved. c. The use and enjoyment of adjacent properties - The use and enjoyment that these wetlands provide include observation of bird life, and textural interest and exploration. The addition of the road will not curtail the use or enjoyment of either wetland. Although some cedars will be removed there are many more remaining. The cattails at the edge of the northern wetland will not be disturbed. Access to both wetland, physically and visually will be maintained. d. Wetland functions and values - The functions and values (as outlined in the Vermont Wetlands Rules) in addition to those listed in this section of the regulation are: hydrophytic vegetation habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat, education and research in natural science and recreation value and economic benefit. There is no documented information on rare plants or plants that are at their range limit within these wetlands. There are no threatened or endangered species observed within the impacted area. There is no history of the use of these wetlands either in research or scientific papers nor are the characteristics that make it potentially unique or valuable for education or scientific research purposes in evidence. There is no harvesting of wild foods nor fishing in this wetland. If there are some hunting or trapping activities within this wetland the road will not restrict them. e. Wildlife and fisheries habitat - Lawrence E. Garland, a Vermont District Wildlife Biologist, visited the site in June and found these wetlands are a site for great blue heron feeding and turtles. He has supported the location of the road as it impacts the wetland the least. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. %77 Karen A. Pettersen docsTaten\850 8310 l .sam City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 6, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. JW/mcp Encls City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 5, 1996 Joe Segali Chittenden County Regional Planning P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: Ledgeknoll Phase III - Traffic Analysis Dear Joe: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the attached traffic study and provide the City with any comments, concerns or recommendations you may have. The Planning Commission will be hearing the application on Tuesday, September loth. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with your comments prior to Tuesday night. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, / n1cP Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl WILLIAM A. FEAD CHRISTINE H. FEAD 33 Dubois Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 August 6, 1996 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o City Hall Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Application of Homer Dubois for "Ledge Knoll III" Development of Houses Off Dubois Drive Dear Sirs: My wife and I are owners of and reside at 33 Dubois Drive, the next to last house on the southerly side of the street. Because I anticipate being out of town on business on October 13, I will be unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for that date on the above application. I am writing to convey my concerns with the proposed plans for the development. 1. Lack of Access. The South Burlington Zoning Ordinance limits to 50 the number of homes which can be served by Dubois Drive. At the last hearing on his application, Mr. Dubois was informed that his plan must show a different access or an additional access. In an attempt to accommodate this instruction, Mr. Dubois has modified his plans to show a reserved area on his property which might be connected to a public street (presumably either VanSicklen Road or Brownell Road) if he could obtain a right-of-way across lands of others. However, the plans do not show the proposed road providing such access, nor is there any indication that Mr. Dubois has actually obtained a right-of-way across the adjoining properties. The plans should show the same level of detail for this access as is shown for the extension of Dubois Drive. As a result, Mr. Dubois' plan does not show compliance with the zoning ordinance, and his application must be denied. 2. Traffic Impact on Dubois Drive. If Mr. Dubois were to connect the proposed development to either Brownell or VanSicklen Road as he apparently contemplates, Dubois would be converted from a dead end road serving about 50 homes to a through street serving more than 90 homes in Ledge Knoll and any additional development along the road connecting to VanSicklen or Brownell Roads, as well as providing a shortcut between Hinesburg Road and Brownell Road. This would have the effect of doubling or perhaps quadrupling traffic on the entire length of Dubois Drive. It would have the further effect of multiplying the number of vehicle trips in the lower end of Dubois Drive near my house, by a factor of 20 or more. Dubois Drive is not designed for these levels of traffic. It is narrow, particularly if cars are parked on the street. The construction of the existing road bed is probably insufficient to handle the suggested increased traffic. It already exhibits premature deterioration. The City has been required to fill sink holes in the pavement and to repair sunken storm drains and catch basins. The road surface undulates and is badly cracked. All of these conditions would become worse with heavier traffic. 3. Off -site Improvements and Repairs. If Mr. Dubois is to be allowed access to the proposed development through Dubois Drive, he should be required to repair the deficiencies in the existing roadway he constructed and to upgrade the roadway to handle the additional traffic. In addition, he should be required to install stop signs on Dubois Drive at the easterly intersection with Knoll Circle, to reduce traffic flow. Finally, he should be required to construct acceleration and deceleration lanes on Hinesburg Road at the intersection with Dubois Drive. 4. Use of Alternate Road Access Instead of Dubois Drive. Given the problems that Dubois Drive will suffer if the proposed development is constructed, and given the zoning ordinance's requirement that Mr. Dubois construct a connection to another street, there is no reason why Mr. Dubois should be permitted to connect his new development to Dubois Drive at all. The connecting roadway must pass through wetlands. Breaking the connection with Dubois Drive would prevent use of Dubois Drive as a shortcut or for access to other development to be built on the lands adjoining Mr. Dubois' parcel. Since Mr. Dubois' need for access to his parcel would be satisfied by the alternative roadway, all of these problems would be eliminated if the proposed development was not accessed through Dubois Drive. 5. Divided Roadway. Mr. Dubois' Plans show a divided roadway for the proposed extension of Dubois Drive traversing the wetland area. Presumably this is intended primarily as an aesthetic or marketing feature. It poses several problems, however, which should override the benefits of dividing the roadway. First, I presume that the divider island will be dedicated to the City along with the road. This means that the City will become responsible for maintaining the island, a pointless and unnecessary municipal expense. Second, the long stretch of divided roadway, without houses or driveways on either side, will encourage speeding. Cars already speed up the hill on Dubois Drive, and this divided highway would only make matters worse. 6. Stormwater Discharge Ponds. The Plan shows two stormwater discharge ponds apparently intended to receive intermittent stormwater flows from the storm drains in the roadways. These pose two concerns. The first is a concern about insect infestations, particularly mosquitoes. The soil types in the area do not drain well, and the elevations intended for the stormwater drainage ponds are quite close to that of the wetlands. In a wet summer like this one, these drainage ponds are likely to retain standing water for much of the time and to remain exceedingly damp overall. This raises the risk that the stormwater drainage ponds will become havens for mosquitoes and other insects, increasing a serious problem already posed by the current swamp at the end of Dubois Drive. The second concern is maintenance. When the ponds do dry out, they are likely to become playground areas for children. Kids on bikes already use the existing island in the cul-de-sac as a place to build jumps and ramps. The ponds will provide ready-made ramps. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it will mean that the ponds will require maintenance to counteract the resulting erosion. Once again, I presume that the intent is to dedicate the ponds to the City, thus giving the City yet another unnecessary expense. 7. Open Areas. The Plan shows large open areas along the northerly boundary and in the southeast corner of the tract. No suggestion is given as to the ultimate disposition of this land. Some of it is wetland, particularly along the western border of the tract and in the southeast corner. Some of it, however, is cleared, dry, arable or developable land. Is this land to be dedicated to the City, transferred to a homeowner's association, or retained by Mr. Dubois? Each of these scenarios presents different issues. Does the City want landlocked, inaccessible open space, useless for any purpose and removed from the tax rolls? Does the City want to encourage slipshod land use planning and development, creating idle parcels managed, if at all, by otherwise disinterested homeowners, relying on a doubtful management structure of an almost inactive homeowner's association to collect the sums necessary for the payment of taxes on lands like this? Can the City afford to devalue portions of its tax base by committing developable lands to disuse? If Mr. Dubois is retaining title, then he should be required to disclose his ultimate intent at the present time, so the true impact of his development on traffic and the wetlands can be determined. This is the standard required of applicants before the District Environmental Commissions and Environmental Board, and nothing less should be required under the City's procedures. Regardless of who owns the land, access to it should be ensured through a right-of- way from the road of sufficient width to allow vehicular access. 8. Wetlands and Natural Habitat Areas. The Master Plan cites the importance of preserving wetlands, wetland recharge areas and natural habitats. The intensive development proposed for these sites must be carefully considered to ensure minimal impact on Muddy Brook and the natural preserve around the existing swamp at the end of Dubois Drive. We have seen a variety of birds and wild animals in the area, including wild turkeys, an egret, owls, and a pair of gray foxes. The applicant should be required to present proof in the form of expert testimony that it's proposed development will have a minimal impact on the wetlands and wildlife preserves. That evidence is not yet in the record. Thank you for considering these issues in your evaluation of Mr. Dubois' application. Very truly yours, William Alexander Fead DIA3: [USER.RCOOKE. WP.FEAD]PLANCOMMISSION.LTR WILLIAM A. FEAD CHRISTINE H. FEAD 33 Dubois Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 August 6, 1996 South Burlington Planning Commission c/o City Hall Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Application of Homer Dubois for "Ledge Knoll III" Development of Houses Off Dubois Drive Dear Sirs: My wife and I are owners of and reside at 33 Dubois Drive, the next to last house on the southerly side of the street. Because I anticipate being out of town on business on October 13, I will be unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for that date on the above application. I am writing to convey my concerns with the proposed plans for the development. 1. Lack of Access. The South Burlington Zoning Ordinance limits to 50 the number of homes which can be served by Dubois Drive. At the last hearing on his application, Mr. Dubois was informed that his plan must show a different access or an additional access. In an attempt to accommodate this instruction, Mr. Dubois has modified his plans to show a reserved area on his property which might be connected to a public street (presumably either VanSicklen Road or Brownell Road) if he could obtain a right-of-way across lands of others. However, the plans do not show the proposed road providing such access, nor is there any indication that Mr. Dubois has actually obtained a right-of-way across the adjoining properties. The plans should show the same level of detail for this access as is shown for the extension of Dubois Drive. As a result, Mr. Dubois' plan does not show compliance with the zoning ordinance, and his application must be denied. 2. Traffic Impact on Dubois Drive. If Mr. Dubois were to connect the proposed development to either Brownell or VanSicklen Road as he apparently contemplates, Dubois would be converted from a dead end road serving about 50 homes to a through street serving more than 90 homes in Ledge Knoll and any additional development along the road connecting to VanSicklen or Brownell Roads, as well as providing a shortcut between Hinesburg Road and Brownell Road. This would have the effect of doubling or perhaps quadrupling traffic on the entire length of Dubois Drive. It would have the further effect of multiplying the number of vehicle trips in the lower end of Dubois Drive near my house, by a factor of 20 or more. Dubois Drive is not designed for these levels of traffic. It is narrow, particularly if cars are parked on the street. The construction of the existing road bed is probably insufficient to handle the suggested increased traffic. It already exhibits premature deterioration. The City has been required to till sink holes in the pavement and to repair sunken storm drains and catch basins. The road surface undulates and is badly cracked. All of these conditions would become worse with heavier traffic. 3. Off -site Improvements and Repairs. If Mr. Dubois is to be allowed access to the proposed development through Dubois Drive, he should be required to repair the deficiencies in the existing roadway he constructed and to upgrade the roadway to handle the additional traffic. In addition, he should be required to install stop signs on Dubois Drive at the easterly intersection with Knoll Circle, to reduce traffic flow. Finally, he should be required to construct acceleration and deceleration lanes on Hinesburg Road at the intersection with Dubois Drive. 4. Use of Alternate Road Access Instead of Dubois Drive. Given the problems that Dubois Drive will suffer if the proposed development is constructed, and given the zoning ordinance's requirement that Mr. Dubois construct a connection to another street, there is no reason why Mr. Dubois should be permitted to connect his new development to Dubois Drive at all. The connecting roadway must pass through wetlands. Breaking the connection with Dubois Drive would prevent use of Dubois Drive as a shortcut or for access to other development to be built on the lands adjoining Mr. Dubois' parcel. Since Mr. Dubois' need for access to his parcel would be satisfied by the alternative roadway, all of these problems would be eliminated if the proposed development was not accessed through Dubois Drive. 5. Divided Roadway. Mr. Dubois' Plans show a divided roadway for the proposed extension of Dubois Drive traversing the wetland area. Presumably this is intended primarily as an aesthetic or marketing feature. It poses several problems, however, which should override the benefits of dividing the roadway. First, I presume that the divider island will be dedicated to the City along with the road. This means that the City will become responsible for maintaining the island, a pointless and unnecessary municipal expense. Second, the long stretch of divided roadway, without houses or driveways on either side, will encourage speeding. Cars already speed up the hill on Dubois Drive, and this divided highway would only make matters worse. 6. Stormwater Discharge Ponds. The Plan shows two stormwater discharge ponds apparently intended to receive intermittent stormwater flows from the storm drains in the roadways. These pose two concerns. The first is a concern about insect infestations, particularly mosquitoes. The soil types in the area do not drain well, and the elevations intended for the stormwater drainage ponds are quite close to that of the wetlands. In a wet summer like this one, these drainage ponds are likely to retain standing water for much of the time and to remain exceedingly damp overall. This raises the risk that the stormwater drainage ponds will become havens for mosquitoes and other insects, increasing a serious problem already posed by the current swamp at the end of Dubois Drive. The second concern is maintenance. When the ponds do dry out, they are likely to become playground areas for children. Kids on bikes already use the existing island in the cul-de-sac as a place to build jumps and ramps. The ponds will provide ready-made ramps. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it will mean that the ponds will require maintenance to counteract the resulting erosion. Once again, I presume that the intent is to dedicate the ponds to the City, thus giving the City yet another unnecessary expense. 7. Open Areas. The Plan shows large open areas along the northerly boundary and in the southeast corner of the tract. No suggestion is given as to the ultimate disposition of this land. Some of it is wetland, particularly along the western border of the tract and in the southeast corner. Some of it, however, is cleared, dry, arable or developable land. Is this land to be dedicated to the City, transferred to a homeowner's association, or retained by Mr. Dubois? Each of these scenarios presents different issues. Does the City want landlocked, inaccessible open space, useless for any purpose and removed from the tax rolls? Does the City want to encourage slipshod land use planning and development, creating idle parcels managed, if at all, by otherwise disinterested homeowners, relying on a doubtful management structure of an almost inactive homeowner's association to collect the sums necessary for the payment of taxes on lands like this? Can the City afford to devalue portions of its tax base by committing developable lands to disuse'? If Mr. Dubois is retaining title, then he should be required to disclose his ultimate intent at the present time, so the true impact of his development on traffic and the wetlands can be determined. This is the standard required of applicants before the District Environmental Commissions and Environmental Board, and nothing less should be required under the City's procedures. Regardless of who owns the land, access to it should be ensured through a right-of- way from the road of sufficient width to allow vehicular access. 8. Wetlands and Natural Habitat Areas. The Master Plan cites the importance of preserving wetlands, wetland recharge areas and natural habitats. The intensive development proposed for these sites must be carefully considered to ensure minimal impact on Muddy Brook and the natural preserve around the existing swamp at the end of Dubois Drive. We have seen a variety of birds and wild animals in the area, including wild turkeys, an egret, owls, and a pair of gray foxes. The applicant should be required to present proof in the form of expert testimony that it's proposed development will have a minimal impact on the wetlands and wildlife preserves. That evidence is not yet in the record. Thank you for considering these issues in your evaluation of Mr. Dubois' application. Very truly yours, William Alexander Fead DIAI[USER.R000KE. WPTEAD]PLANCOMMISSION.LTR ' _ �r - '- ~~ �� -- I-K0 � V �� V '- - - -��--- ' r-- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 9, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Enginners, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. ,in erel , Jo Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls ;pr,�yy,� yyr,W 985-20on96. prererred. Call t t or�-d0� � ���.�.Irt LEGAL NOTI ES 1 pay INVITATION TO BID ]s Franklin Central Supervi- sory Union is presently •. accepting bids for provid- 17 ing contractual food serv- d- ice to the students of - Fairfield and St Albans City School districts. Bids are due at Franklin Con- s tral Supervisory Union byy ADVERTlil1e August 7, 1996 at to:00 FOR BFt am- For further informa- a tion contact: David A. inooski Houard Crawford, Business Man- thori a- ager. FCSU, 28 Catherine Barlow Strt St. St Albans VT 05478 inooski, Ven (802)524-2600 a EDE perate seal of received fng PUBLIC NEARING d servicelw SOUTH BURLINGTON e fire alar(r- PLANNING e apartmerdc- COMMISSION 5-279 Mare inooski, Vets+ The South Burlington ds will be Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at t e Owner aed the South Burlington City 83 Bari( inooski, 1 Hall, Conference Room, I 575 Dorset Street, South 30 P.M- (Wof Burlington, Vermont on y August Tuesday, August 13, 1996 II be pu d read ai'er- at 7.30 P.M. to consider the following: t be rr awn or c ys. The ( 11 Preliminary plat appfi- 1 e right to— Catlon of Homer and Mar- ie Dubois to subdivide a bids a[ 32.89 acre parcel of land ive any I bid sutDi- into 40 single family lots, C6tiur- Dubois Drive. This appli- cation represents Phase # e e ict, rr4er- III of the planned resi- T dential development the Owt) known as Ledgeknoll, 2 es s O�ry i 2) Final plat application of if in t 'ned at)ec- Bob and Salty Torney to 11 Farre convert a four (4) unit residential mufti -family rlingto ymentief dwelling into a five (5) unit of c arge ftha mufti -family dwelling, 14. ( Cottage Grove. nt to at y C eck n a e 3) Final plat application of at �prI I d reef, 'L a_ Gary Farrell -Sheraton Inn to amend a rmon!_ planned unit # ns vn development consisting of H a 315 room hotel/confer- a Contleh a once center, Sheraton D of Inn, 870 Williston Road. of iiting i)o►Y The amendment consists Z of 1) constructing a new q land h5 or drop-off Canopy. 2) en- closing oCauat existing canopy to for shops, and 3) site er( modifications. gr itted S Copies of the applications an are available for public PI inspection at the South e( Burlington City Hall. a ai William Burgess ca - • id Chairman, it e' . South Burlington Planning Commission R' 1 Q Z Z JUN 27, 1996. f EN SKIDS I S contact o� Au Peeters At 1. GC ioton Free Press tloi b sul 660-1801 cry 11 State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>Voice 1-800-253-0195 Voioe>TDD Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308, 14 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation RE: Ledgeknoll Phase I1I, Dubois Property, South Burlington Conditional Use Determination #96-069 Dear Tyler: WATER QUALITY DIVISION 103 South Main Street Building 10 North Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 FAx 802-241-3287 TEL 802-241-3770 July 22, 1996 I have reviewed the application we received for Phase III of the Ledgeknoll Subdivision in South Burlington. I was pleased to see that my recommendations to avoid the Class Two wetlands and buffer zones except for the access road have been largely incorporated. I do have a few questions on this application however. 1) You did a good job describing whether a wetland function was provided by the' wetlands, but did not discuss how these functions would or would not be impacted by this project. For each of the functions that are provided by the wetland, you should discuss the impacts. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts to any of the wetland functions. It is not always clear what wetland area is being discussed. The western wetland is one wetland, although it is divided by the road. Since impacts are proposed so close to the buffer zone of the eastern wetland, impacts to the functions and efforts to minimize impacts should be also addressed. 2) For function 14 i, open space and aesthetics, is any of the wetlands on or adjacent to the project readily viewable by the public? 3) Are there more detailed plans other than the 1:100 scale plan, sheet SP1, that you sent. No stormwater details such as detention ponds, discharge culverts, and energy dissipator; grading; erosion control; road stations or similar details are shown but should be. Where is the farm road relative to the new road?. What is the width of road, side slopes and width at toe of slope and location of culverts? In 15c you mention an area that will be converted to wetland. Please elaborate in detail and show on plans. Chlorine Free 100% Recycled Paper Regional. Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/Rutland/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury 4) If the access road was shifted to the north a bit, would wetland impacts be minimized? As you know, the Wetland Rules require all practicable efforts be taken to avoid and minimize impacts. Plantings along the edge of the buffer zones such as cedar would also minimize impacts. Enclosed is an Agency publication abouth plants in buffer zones. 5) Will there be covenants and deed restrictions to protect the wetlands and buffer zones? Let me know if you would like sample language. Finally, I would like to conduct a second site visit to confirm wetland boundaries and to better evaluate wetland functions. Please let me know if you or your client would like to be there during my site visit. Feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Catherine L. O'Brien Assistant Wetlands Coordinator cc: Larry Garland, District Wildlife Biologist enc. cobleftiff6mc F June 4, 1996 Ms. Cathy O'Brien, Wetlands Coordinator Water Quality Division 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC RE: Wetlands Delineation and CUD Application- Dubois Property Dear Cathy: Attached is the C.U.D. for Ledgeknoll Phase III in South Burlington. We visited the site with you on March 19, 1996 and walked the entire site. We reviewed the Federal Wetlands Map, looked at vegetation, reviewed the soils, observed on site hydrology and agreed on the wetland boundaries in accordance with the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. After our site visit we located the boundary as determined and plotted it on the attached map. We then drew a 50 ft. buffer line around the edge of the wetland and designed our residential project so that no lots encroached in the wetland or a 50 ft. buffer. The access road which is presently a farm road built on fill material is within the buffer, hence we have enclosed a C.U.D. application for your review. We want it reviewed and approved , but not issued due to the one year limit in effect. It may take more time to secure other permits. If you could write us a letter confirming the delineation, it would be most helpful. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 71/u-k Tyler Hart, P.E. P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 I VERMONT WETLAND Rk IS CONDITIONAL USE DETERMINATION APPLICATION Title 10 V.S.A., Chapter 37, Section 905 file number: date received: [ ] complete [ ] incomplete date completed: DEC receiver: OFFICE USE ONLY INTRODUCTION The following questions must be answered in order for this application to be considered complete. If you have questions on any portion of this form, please call the Vermont Wetlands Office at (802) 241-3770 for assistance. NAMES 1. Applicant-- Homer and Marie Dubois Address: 1405 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: 862-8687 2. Landowner (if different): Address: Phone: 3. Representative: Tyler Hart, P.E. Address: P.O. Box 3 Williston, VT 05495 Phone: 879-6331 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4. Location: (Street Address) Ledgeknoll — South Burlington 5. Acres owned by applicant and landowner at project site: 53 Acres Acres involved in project: 20 (+/- 6. Project purpose: Extension of an existing residential subdivision. 7. General project description (include number and size of buildings; number of lots; length of roads; type of sewage disposal; etc.) 40 lots, 3300 feet road, municipal water and sewer. — 1 — OTHER INFORMATIO- 8. Are any other federal, state or local permits required for this project, and if so have they been applied for or obtained? Applied Required for Obtained US Army Corps of Engineers Permit [ ] [ ] [ ] 401 Water Quality Certification [ [ ] [ ] VT Act 250 Permit [X] [ ] [ ] VT Stormwater Discharge Permit [X] [ ] [ VT Lakes and Ponds Permit [ ] [ ] [ ] VT Stream Alteration Permit [ ] [ ] [ ] Local Zoning Permit [X] [ ] [ ] Other: [] [] [] 9. Attach the following information to the application: [ ] Location map (project area marked on a USGS topographic map or Vermont Significant Wetlands Map) [XI Site plan(s) including existing conditions, proposed work, erosion controls, and wetland and buffer zone boundaries (see Sections 3.2 and 4.6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules for description of methodology). [ ] Any other narratives or documents that the application intends to rely upon in support of the proposed Conditional Use. [ ] Photos of wetland:, if available. 10. List the names and complete mailing addresses of all persons owning property within or adjacent to the wetland or buffer zone in question. Name Mailing Address with Zip Code Homer Dubois 1 Summer Tra Jo;n V nturP 8 h„rrh St R,,,-i;,,gt_n, VT nSLni Ralph & Jeannettechell _M t12 DuboiG D So. R„r1; Diane Wessell 70 Hi hland Terrace o ",,o`arm, VT n5t,n,a- VT- nS401 Attach additional sheets if necessary. — 2 — WETLAND AND E PER ZONE IMPACTS 11. Complete the following for the entire wetland in question. ' a. Size of wetland (to nearest 112 acre) : 16 acres No., 2.4 acres b. Check the dominant type of wetland present: open water marsh wet meadow shrub swamp X forested swamp bog or fen beaver influenced wetland other (explain): c. Name of all streams, rivers, lakes and ponds adjacent to the wetland and approximate distance from proposed activity: headwater of Potash Brook - 1450 feet. d. Approximate the percentage of each of the following cover types in the area surrounding the wetland: 5% forested 90% agriculture old field open water lawn 5% residential .commercial or industrial road other (specify) 12. Complete the following for the portion of the wetland and buffer zone in the area of proposed impact. a. s. Area of impact in wetland (sq ft) :6688gsg.tftosouth Area of impact in buffer zone (sq ft) : 16,000 b. Check the type of wetland present (check all that apply) : open water marsh wet meadow X shrub swamp X forested swamp bog or fen beaver influenced wetland other (explain): C. Description of _dominant vegetation: Common catta; outer edge with dead trees dominating the north wetland. Sedge and cedar dominate the south wetland in the area of impact. Grass dominates d. the buffer. Description of soils in the wetland and buffer zone (from Soil Conservation Service soil surveys or site investigations) : Livingstone (from S.C.S. ) e. Check the characteristics of the wetland which apply: X flooded most of the time. standing water during at least part of the growing season water impounded by beavers soils are saturated during at least part of the growing season dry most of the year f. Description of the buffer zone: The buffer zone is a farm road slightly elevated above the wetlands. The side slopes are very flat grassed areas, probably remnants of S.C.S. grass mixture. — 3 — 13. Describe it detail all work that is r 1posed within the wetland or hffer zone, including erc on control measures, referencing attached plans where appropriate. The work consists of construction of a city street 30 feet wide with a concrete si ewa on e south side located 1 foot from the edge of the 60 foot ;rjP Installation of a discharge culvert with rip rap Pnergy d;GG;narar. ThP plans are enclosed. 14. Before this section is completed it will be necessary to determine for which functions the wetland in question is significant. The functional criteria for evaluating a wetland's significance are described in Section 5 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. The Vermont Wetland Evaluation form is available through the Wetlands Office to help determine which functions may be significant. Demonstrate how the project as proposed will avoid any adverse impacts on each of the functions. Refer to plans and other attached documents as necessary. a. Water storage for flood water and storm runoff: See attached narrative. b. Surface and ground water protection: c. Fisheries habitat: d. Wildlife and migratory bird habitat: e. Hydrophytic vegetation habitat: f. Threatened and endangered species habitat: g. Education and research in natural science: 4 - h. Rec. ational value and economic benefit: i. Open space and aesthetics: j. Erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil: 15. Demonstrate by narrative and reference to plans that the following mitigation measures have been used to achieve no undue adverse impacts to the protected wetland functions. a. Can the proposed activity practicably be located on an upland portion of the site or on another site owned, controlled or available to satisfy the basic project purpose? (Explain) b. Demonstrate how all practicable measures have been taken to avoid or minimize. -adverse impacts on protected functions, including project redesign or project scale back. C. For wetlands that have been disturbed, what steps will be taken to restore impacted functions (e.g. plantings, seeding, mulching exposed soil, removal of fill, etc.) 16. Wetland compensation (creating replacement wetlands) is a measure to mitigate adverse impacts on protected functions that will only be possible in rare cases for specific functions- (see-- Section 8.5c of the Vermont Wetland Rules). If a compensation plan is part of this proposal, demonstrate by narrative and reference to plans how the steps in Section 8. 5c (1) -(7) will be met. - 5 - DISTRIBUTION 17. Submit the original request for conditional use determination to the Wetlands Office, Division of Water Quality, 103 South Main Street, 10 North, 2nd Floor, Waterbury, VT 05671-0408. Notification of receipt will be sent to the applicant once a complete application has been received by the Wetlands Office. 18. After receiving notification of completeness from the Wetlands Office, send a complete copy of the application to the Town Clerk and Regional Planing Commission. Also send copies of the location map, a description of the specific action(s) for which conditional use determination is sought, the supporting narratives, and a listing of where complete copies of the request have been filed to: a. the municipal planning commission and/or conservation commission; and b. all persons owning property within or adjacent to the wetland or buffer zone (item 10 of the application). SIGNATURES 19. I hereby certify that the information provided above or attached to -this application is true and accurate to the best of my khowlle ge. A.'), Signatu of Ap n Date ZZ Si n t e of A� g ppl ca t Rep esentative Date j11323-0200. HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS 'LEDGEKNOLL' S. Burlington CONDITIONAL USE DETERMINATION Narrative 14.a. Water storage for flood water and storm runoff. - The wetlands on either side of the access road are significant for stormwater runoff control. They are located in a saddle in flat terrain at a break between two watersheds and at the headwaters of the Potash Brook. The two wetlands were probably connected prior to the construction of the now existing farm road. The wetland on the north side has a 100 acres drainage area above it. It contains a small lot residential development separated from the wetland by a 6 acre meadow on the west side and another meadow on the east side. The wetland on the south side of the proposed road has a long and narrow watershed of approximately 10 acres. Part of the same residential development and meadow is located in it's drainage area. The slope of the surrounding land is rolling and the soils are mostly Vergennes and Covington. This wetland attenuates some of the stormwater flow from the surrounding area before discharging the water into an unnamed tributary of the Potash Brook. 14.b. Surface and ground water protection: These wetlands are significant for enhancing the quality of the water by removal of nutrients from fertilizers, pesticides, grease and oil from vehicles and road salts. There is a limited amount of pollutants that reach the wetlands due to the limited use of the agricultural fields and the buffer those fields provide between the residences and the wetlands. Approximately 1.6 acres of existing roadway discharges stormwater runoff into a ditch which flows into the southwest corner of the northern wetland. 14.c. Fisheries habitat: These wetlands are not significant as a fisheries habitat. 14.d. Wildlife and migratory bird habitat: These wetlands are significant as wildlife habitat, because it is a wooded swamp with open water just downstream, the surrounding land uses are old, but mowed fields. 14.e. Hydrophytic vegetation habitat: These wetlands are not significant for this function. There is no documented information on rare plants or plants that are at their range limit within these wetlands. The type of vegetation near the areas of impact is very common and consist of white cedar, common cattail, white pine, red stem dogwood,'a sedge, a willow, red maple, sensitive fern, an ash and dead trees. 14.f. Threatened and endangered species habitat: These wetlands are not significant for this function as stated above. 14.g. Education and research in natural science: These wetlands are not significant for this function. It is privately owned, has no history of this use and is not unique. 14.h. Recreational value chid economic benefits: These wetlands are not significant for this function. 14.i. Open space curd aesthetics: The north wetland is significant as open space due to the open space easement reserved by the City of S. Burlington during the permit process for the original residential subdivision. The south wetland has no such easement and is not significant for this function. 14.j. Erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil: These wetlands are not significant for erosion control. The stormwater that flows overland into these wetlands and it seeps out at the north end. There are no shorelines or streambanks within the wetlands and the stream that this wetland discharges into has a very flat gradient. Just north of the wetland the stream flows into a farm pond on the neighboring property where there is not evidence of erosion. 15.a. Can the proposed activity practicably be located on an upland portion of the site or on another site owned, controlled or available to satisfy the basic project purpose? The access road to the proposed subdivision is located in the best possible area. The wetland extends almost the full width of the property. There is a small strip of land between the two wetlands that is used for the access to the back field. This will be the general location of the road to the proposed subdivision. 15.b. Demonstrate how all practicable measures been taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on protected functions, including project redesign or project scale back. The adverse impacts that will occur to the wetland due to the road construction are to the quality of the stormwater from the .84 acres of pavement that will be discharged into the buffer. The measures used to minimize these impacts have been to locate the culvert which will connect the two wetlands to a location where there is enough room to provide for an energy dissipater. The discharge point for this portion of the roadway storm drainage system is located within the buffer zone because the low point in the road is at station 4+10. In order to change the low point the roadway would have to be raised which means additional fill would be placed in the wetland and buffer zone. Most of the stormwater from the roadway drainage system will be discharged into two detention ponds. 15.c. For wetlands that have been disturbed, what steps will be taken to restore impacted functions (e.g. plantings, seeding, mulching exposed soil, removal of fill, etc.). The roadway side slopes will be seeded and mulched. The buffer area on the north side of the road between the toe of the slope and the wetland and between stations 2+00 and 4+50 will be converted to wetland. The fill in this area that was placed there years ago will be removed and the area will be mulched. Hydrophytic vegetation, probably cattails, will return to this strip through natural seeding, etc., since cattails are adjacent to the existing fill. This area would be approximately 7500 square feet. State of Vermont Department Of Fish and Wildlife Department Of Forests, Parks, And Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council Ms. Karen Petterson Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P. 0. Box 308 Williston, VT 05495 RE: Ledge Knoll 485083, South Burlington Dear Ms. Petterson, AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTAIENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 111 West Street ❑ 324 N. Main Street Essex Jct., VT 05452 Barre, VT 05641 (802) 878-1564 (802) 479-3242 ❑ RR ki, Box 33 ❑ 184 Portland Street N. Springfield, VT 05150 St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 (802) 886-2215 (802) 748-8787 ❑ RR 2, Pittsford Academy Pittsford, VT 05763 (802) 483-2172 June 12, 1996 VT Tclecommunications Relay Servicc 1-800-253-0191 On June 10, 1996, I made a site visit to evaluate wildlife habitat for your Conditional Use Determination for the Vermont Wetland Rule and your anticipated Act 250 submission relative to Act 250's criteria 8A. As you are aware, there is a Class 2 wetland at this location. This wetland is significant wildlife habitat under function 5.4a(3) great blue heron feeding site, 5.4d(1) map turtles present and 5.4e(lb,c,d,f,& 5.4e(3)). I spoke to Cathy O'Brien about your project. She told me that she was inclined to permit access over the existing farm road instead of creating a second road across the wetland and that she has advised you of the need for a 50-foot wide undisturbed buffer with prohibitions against converting the buffer strip to mowed lawn in the future. I support her recommendations and, if they are adopted, see no need for further protection for wildlife habitat under criteria 8A of Act 250. CC: John Austin Cathy O'Brien Sincerely, , Lawrence E. Garland District Wildlife Biologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury printed on recycled paper PLANNING COMMISSION 23 APRIL 1996 PAGE 2 way access to the land to the east. Mr. Austin asked the applicant to describe Highland Terr. Mr. Hart showed it on the plan. Mr. Austin said he did not see how that road could be considered a second access. Mr. Cobb said they would have had a potential third access to the Green Acres property, but the city effectively cut that off when it didn't require it of the Green Acres development. Mr. Austin felt the proposed 40 units don't have a second access. He said that Highland Terrace allowed the building of 7 additional units which brought the existing total to 57 units. Mr. Cobb said that Stonehedge and Dorset Park don't have second accesses and have more than 50 units. He added that Mr. Dubois has had to build accesses on other people's land at his expense while other developers haven't had to meet the 2 access standard. Mr. Austin repeated his conviction that Highland Terrace is not a second access to the proposed 40 units. Mr. Austin also noted that the applicant will have to show what they will do to protect the wetland since they will be infringing on the buffer zone. Regarding the Rec Path, Mr. Weith said the Rec Path Committee hasn't had a chance to review the revised plan. Mr. Miner said it would be helpful to have access to Muddy Brook from this new development area. Ms. Feed said her backyard is very wet and she had a concern about the wetland. She noted this land is wet most of the year. She also felt it was ludicrous to consider Highland Terrace a road. Mr. Burgess said the Commission will go by the legal definition of a wetland. Ms. Poe was very concerned about traffic, noting there are many children in the area and the sidewalk is only on one side of the street. People coming down the hill can't see children playing. She felt Highland Terrace cannot address that concern. Ms. Valenta said she has a home occupation and notices traffic all day long. She felt the entrance is not feasible and is dangerous. Mr. Millette said he agreed with other neighbors about the dangerous traffic conditions. He felt something has to be done on Hinesbur d. He said that asking people to exit at Hig-hlan& Terrace is asking them to kill themselves. Mr. Valenta noted that the single accesses to Stonehedge and Village at Dorset Park are not lined with houses. Dubois Drive is. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 APRIL 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Ewing said that the requirement for a second access for more than 50 units was fnr safety purposes. There would be 92 units on one access here, and Mr. Ewing felt that was not safe. Mr. Finnegan said that to the right of his house is the town sewer system. People who check it say that any change in the water system could upset the system and flood his house. Mr. Cole said he concurs with most of the concerns expressed. He felt the area was all very fragile land because of the wetness. Ms. Finnegan said she was concerned with the burden on the schools and noted people are struggling to pay taxes. Mr. Wood felt that construction vehicles shouldn't be allowed on Dubois Drive for safety reasons. He noted the deplorable condition of the existing Knoll Circle and Dubois Drive. There are crumbling curbs and sub -standard streets that the city has to maintain constantly. Mr. Finnegan added that the road "caves in." Mr. Burgess said that the developer will be required to build streets to city standards. Mr. Weith added that he would get comments from Mr. Audette on the roads. Mr. Sperry asked if there is anything proposed with access on Knoll Circle that would have gone into Green Acres. Mr. Burgess said there is not. Mr. Burgess then reviewed the issues raised at this hearing, including: the second access, buildable areas, building in the CO Zone, and details of the pedestrian easement. r 4. Public Hearing: Review final plat application of John Larkin to amend an approved planned residential development consisting of 120 multi -family units and 37 single family units, Bay Crest Road. The amendment consists of minor revisions to the layout of 5 duplex buildings on 1.5 acres of land (i.e., "Cluster C"): Mr. Rabideau said there will be 10 dwelling units, upscale in nature. They will modify the footprints of buildings 1, 3, 4, and 5 as individual buyers are asking for specific changes. The units have 2 indoor parking spaces. The road and utilities don't change. Mr. Weith said the Fire Chief is satisfied with the distance between units Mr. Weith suggested identifying a building envelope that units would fit within and then specific changes that remain within that envelope would not have to come back to the Commission. �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. August 6, 1996 Mr. Ray Belaire, Asst. City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Ledgeknoll Dear Ray: 1. Under section 6.606 of the South Burlington zoning ordinance the Planning Commission shall review projects with lots in restricted areas according to subcriteria a through d. Our review of the official zoning map showing developable area and restricted area indicates the official map is inaccurate in that it shows a stream on the Dubois property that does not exist. It further shows a wetland area that is not accurate. Our lot layout has taken into account streams, wetlands, wetlands buffers. scenic view corridors, the natural topography, access to pedestrian easements, and open space. We have avoided wetlands and buffers completely. We have preserved scenic views and the airport approach cone. We have set aside open space. All lots conform to zoning requirements. The open space can be used for agriculture, gardening, or fruit crops. All lot will be served by City water and sewer. We have designed permanent erosion controls and temporary erosion controls to prevent sedimentation. We have done traffic study that concludes the project will not create unsafe conditions and done not require any special modifications to handle the traffic. The streets have been designed to City standards. We have provided access to adjacent property. These comments address Sections 26.151 and 3.503. 2. We are requesting sewer allocation for 19100 gpd including infiltration. This is based on 40 lots. 3. We have indicated flood base elevation and contours based on mean sea level. we have show the restricted area as on City maps. Please note the errors I mentioned above. 4. We have added the I-O and SEQ districts and view corridor. We have added street trees. There is no stream either on the property or adjacent land to the east. City map is in error. 5. All the land north of the lots is open space adjacent to Summer Ice to the north. P O. Box 308 14 Blair Parlc Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 6. Attached is the CUD application we submitted to the State along with Cathy O'Briens comments. The CUD is for the road crossing the buffer. We have asked for a letter to concur with our wetland delineation which she concurred with in the field in March. Our delineation was made based on soils, vegetation, and observed hydrology in accordance with the Manual for Wetlands delineation. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler iart, P.E. SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE: South Burlington High School Bruce C. Chattman SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403-6296 Superintendent 550 DORSET STREET Tel. 802/658-9050 FAX 802/658-9029 April 7, 1996 Joe Weith, City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 re: Ledge Knoll. Phase III Dubois Drive 42 single family lots Dear Joe, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed residential development. At the conclusion of construction, Central School will have a maximum capacity of 550 students (22 classrooms at 25 students per room). We predict an enrollment of 396 students in September, 1996. Projects previously approved by the Planning Commission* have resulted in approximately 624 units - all in the Orchard Elementary School District. Since these approved residential developments will require the School District to redistrict students to Central and Chamberlin, the available space at Central will be impacted by these other developments. Until the approved projects are completed, it will be difficult to ascertain the actual enrollment impact upon Central School. Provided with the present capacity at Central School and lacking the precise impact of the above referenced developments on Central School, I believe that, under present conditions, Central School can accommodate the enrollment impact of this proposed development. Please call me if you have any questions.. Sincerely, f Lc - ruce C. Chattman *Economou development (230 units) Phase V of Meadowood Condominiums (50 units) Knowland Two (73 units) Pinnacle at Spear (90 units) Southeast Summit (181 units) c: Development File School Board July 5, 1996 To: Joe Weith, City Planner From: Lou Bresee, Secretary - Recreation Path Committev'r440 Subject: Dubois 40 Lot Subdivision Re: Homer Dubois, 42 Lot Subdivision Letter dated March 6, 1996 The Recreation Path Committee met March 4, 1996 and discussed the proposed referenced project al, also known as Ledge Knoll Phase III. The proposed project is located east of Hinesburg Road and west of Muddy Brook. The South Burlington Official Map dated October 10, 1992 shows a planned recreation path along Muddy Brook and access to that area through this development would be very desirable. The two eastern corners of the proposed development appear to provide the type of access that would be required for a recreation path. The 60 foot right of way on the northern corner would easily accommodate a bike path but the property is not very close to Muddy Brook at that point. The south corner labeled as a storm water retention area is close to Muddy Brook and a bike easement through that are would be very desirable. While the design of storm water retention areas is not a topic that the committee is familiar with it is not believed that a potential path needs to be located in an area that is never under water. It is therefore believed that an easement around the border of the area may be very satisfactory. The above paragraph appeared in the referenced letter. On July 1,1996 the Committee met with Tyler Hart, Trudell Consulting Engineers Inc. representing Homer Dubois and discussed the revised plan received by the City on June 4, 1996. As a result of that meeting our recommendation for an easement is revised slightly. It is now recommended that an easement be granted north from the north loop of Dubois Drive into the open space and then east to the boundary of the property. Such an easement is currently shown between lots 7 and 8 but any routing that avoided a wet land would be acceptable. We stand ready to discuss our thoughts with either you or the developer. �T TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. June 5, 1996 Mr. Joe W eith, City Planner City of South Burlinuton 575 Dorset Street South Burlington. Vermont 05403 RE: Ledg-eknoll Phase III Dear Joe: Attached is the preliminary application for Phase III Ledaeknoll. We have addressed a number of the issues and comments made at the sketch plan hearine on April 23. 1996. 1. We have designed the new roadway access with a curbed island creating a roadway entering and exiting Phase III. This will leave a second access should one be blocked for some reason. 2. We have delineated the wetlands areas with Cathy O'Brien the State wetlands coordinator, (Section 3.106 of zoning ordinance) We have created a 50 ft. buffer from the wetlands designed the proiect entirely outside the buffer. The map shows all this area to be C.O. Zone. All the C.O. Zone will be offered for sale to the City or State to be preserved as open space to meet to ,goals under section 6.606 a,b,c and d of the zoning ordinance. 3. We have contacted Mr. Donald Miner of the recreation committee to review the appropriate location for pedestrian easements, but have not yet met with him. 4. We have addressed the comments of staff by providing the divided roadway access, providing a 20 ft. pedestrian easement, and avoiding development in the wetlands or buffer, 5. We have done a preliminary traffic study. Project traffic is estimated at 414 trip ends (average daily;) and 43 trip ends (peak P.M.). We did a traffic count at Dubois Drive and correlated these estimates to present traffic. The intersection does not warrant a signal with the addition of Phase III. A left turn lane on Route 116 is warranted. Sight distance is adequate for the posted speed of 50 mph for all case III intersection conditions. A review of Agency of Transportation accident logs for the intersection and 800 ft. both sides of the intersection indicates fewer than 5 accidents in a five year period. The actual rate is lower than the critical rate, hence the location not a high accident location. P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler art, P.E. State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of,Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>Voice 1-800-253-0195 Voice>TDD ROUTING GENERAL L I a AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION 103 South Main Streei DATE Building 10 North Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 FAX 802-241-3287 TEL 802-241-3770 July 22, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308, 14 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 RE: Ledgeknoll Phase III, Dubois Property, South Burlington Conditional Use Determination #96-069 Dear Tyler: I have reviewed the application we received for Phase III of the Ledgeknoll Subdivision in South Burlington. I was pleased to see that my recommendations to avoid the Class Two wetlands and buffer zones except for the access road have been largely incorporated. I do have a few questions on this application however. 1) You did a good job describing whether a wetland function was provided by the wetlands, but did not discuss how these functions would or would not be impacted by this project. For each of the functions that are provided by the wetland, you should discuss the impacts. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts to any of the wetland functions. It is not always clear what wetland area is being discussed. The western wetland is one wetland, although it is divided by the road. Since impacts are proposed so close to the buffer zone of the eastern wetland, impacts to the functions and efforts to minimize impacts should be also addressed. 2) For function 14 i, open space and aesthetics, is any of the wetlands on or adjacent to the project readily viewable by the public? 3) Are there more detailed plans other than the 1:100 scale plan, sheet SP1, that you sent. No stormwater details such as detention ponds, discharge culverts, and energy dissipator; grading; erosion control; road stations or similar details are shown but should be. Where is the farm road relative to the new road? What is the width of road, side slopes and width at toe of slope and location of culverts? In 15c you mention an area that will be converted to wetland. Please elaborate in detail and show on plans. Chlorine Free 100% Recycled Paper Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct /Pittsford/Ruflan d/N Sorinafield/St Joh,nshury 4) If the access road was shifted to the north a bit, would wetland impacts be minimized? As you know, the Wetland Rules require all practicable efforts be taken to avoid and minimize impacts. Plantings along the edge of the buffer zones such as cedar would also minimize impacts. Enclosed is an Agency publication abouth plants in buffer zones. 5) Will there be covenants and deed restrictions to protect the wetlands and buffer zones? Let me know if you would like sample language. Finally, I would like to conduct a second site visit to confirm wetland boundaries and to better evaluate wetland functions. Please let me know if you or your client would like to be there during my site visit. Feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Catherine L. O'Brien Assistant Wetlands Coordinator cc: Larry Garland, District Wildlife Biologist enc. cobc 3 I Aij o I /B X� � �6 (�E 7:i- J76 Z Preliminary Memo - Planning August 13, 1996 agenda items July 30, 1996 Page 2 HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT SUBDIVISION- PRELIMINARY PLAT --- applicant should submit a written report addressing the criteria under Sections 6.606, 3.503 and 26.151 of the zoning regulations. The criteria under Section 3.503 should be addressed by a professional wetland expert. --- staff recommends that the lots be numbered 58-99 since this development is an extension of an existing development with lot numbers of 1-57. --- provide three (3) full sized copies of a complete survey of the subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor (Section 203.1(h) of the subdivision regulations). --- provide base flood elevation data (Section 203.1(t) of the subdivision regulations). --- are contour lines based on mean sea level?- --- show the restricted areas and development areas as shown on the SEQ zoning map. --- proposing the 400 foot long median from the existing Dubois Drive to the start of the "loop" road does not negate the fact that 40 additional dwelling units would be added to a cul-de- sac which already serves 50 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul- de-sac to 50 units. A second access should be provided. --- plan should indicate that the northerly boundary is the boundary between the I-O District to the north and the SEQ District to the south. --- the correct name of Highland Drive is Highland Terrace. a portion of the development is located in the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Zone. This should be shown on the plan. Applicant should provide information regarding the maximum height of buildings allowed on lots located within the LL SVP. _-- plan should show street trees. it appears that there is a stream running north -south along the easterly boundary line. This stream should be shown with the accompanying C.O. Zone. --- staff recommends that an easement be provided which connects the 15 foot pedestrian easement on the Green Acres, Inc. property to the 20 foot easement along the north boundary line on the Summer Ice Joint Venture property. 2 ---------------- SMaER ICE JOINT WNTUREF INC IL n. / I 'I \re Q rs 1 � T l I 4„N I a a/aRaloA W. mil. 1 . I gg CQ ZOAE I AqL slat � I i \ No _ ICY II ., APPRGOI CaT Al 1 ---------------- ---------- ------------ --- --- ® f 1 i _ © 1 IIdMMI. aF R ' 1 OPEN SPACL ra ANY IY w aaooI M A%! SURLMTON W» Tula a a awwq YI. l 332 ACRES : ry�0tl pF Mua-ia i DpIRIM AEA 1 � i 1 / O © WERM.D BOUNDARY 62 0 1 Z 1 © a'iMa°"iW°ivc a rz A01Oata,1' Qi Wnoa. 1 / 1 L � 81 I C 7 a r 7 O N IWL Z D. WESSEL n rc. 1S' PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT .a L Lw Alt; 0 5 1996 City of So. Burlington A4 I p�a l WER.VLD 801.NDAR' 9 OPEN SPACE / 37 ACRES + C.O. ZONE GLEN AOIES. a aAa'iaen� vr. D11- NOTES WETLANDS MIWAT70N WAS MADE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO THE ROUTM ON -SITE ME1M00 IN 'FEDERAL MAMUAL FOR IDENTIFYING AND DELMEATINO JURRIICTIONAL WETLANDS', JANUARY 1960. BY JOINT INSPECTION WITH VERMONT WETLANDS COORDINATOR, CATHY OVRIEN, ON MARCH 1% 1996. ELEVATIONS BASED ON U.SGS DATUM. NO STRUCTURE WITHIN THE HINESBURG ROAD NORTH SCENIC VIEW PROIECT70N DISTRICT IS TO EXCEED AN ELEVATION OF 3913 AS CALLED FOR IN SECTION 2270 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON TONING REGULATIONS DENSITY CALCULATIONS - ZONE SEO (PRD) 1.2 UNITS PER ACRE a 88.98 ACRES - 1O.T UNITS MAXIMUM fOJ UNITS - 77 UNITS - M UNITS LOTS ARE MINIMUM 12.000 SF. RECORD OWNER HOA40 AND MARIE OUBOIS T407 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VE. OSW01 Cfophk 9calm 7aa1 IDO 0 100 200 300 /DO Ir TIWDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. N Disk Fort 3Md am 300 M1umlar\ Vt 03400 0" 879. m gflr 6 R S H E p.wlu�1 1 Avill..n r AwrBE, l0m " a ZONE ADD SO M CORRECT sTAaT Nuc aa�V9/FI a� QD awMAa ORARDIO aroYar our Q DaaEFp9at D.y 3y Ravidimma PTepu nBa LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. 31" dft MASTER SITE PLAN P,a dl*R SSO9J S.7 in 1 F a9n.p JM Dra" SLY Day 9/31" 3eay i•.I�'_ Ap9reved SPI City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 July 30, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced projects from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than Monday, August 5, 1996. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since,rely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wallace Possich, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: Plans Reviewed for August 13, 1996 Agenda Date: July 29, 1996 I have reviewed the listed site plans and my comments are as follows: 1) Ledge Knoll, Phase III Dated 6/4/96 Hinesburg Road Project No. 85083-53 An additional hydrant is needed at/near lot 28; otherwise, acceptable. 2) 14 Cottage Grove Dated 6/3/96 5th apartment Project No. 06-8847 Acceptable 3) New Motel Dated 6/5/96 White Street Project No. 9604 Acceptable 4) Gracies Store Addition Dated 6/3/96 Hinesburg Road Project No. 9607 Parking area indicated at front of addition will restrict emergency vehicle access between parking area and gas pump area; otherwise, the addition is acceptable. 5) Sheraton Inn Dated 5/30/96 Williston Road Project No. 95088-53 Acceptable l �- CA'dv f �fl veGwPw P, li�4cis l)„ - rU� PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Preliminary plat application of Homer and Marie Dubois to subdivide a 32.89 acre parcel of land into 40 single family lots, Dubois Drive. This application represents Phase III of the planned residential development known as Ledgeknoll. 2) Final plat application of Bob and Sally Torney to convert a four (4) unit residential multi -family dwelling into a five (5) unit multi -family dwelling, 14 Cottage Grove. 3) Final plat application of Gary Farrell - Sheraton Inn to amend a planned unit development consisting of a 315 room hotel/conference center, Shearton Inn, 870 Williston Road. The amendment consists of 1) constructing a new drop-off canopy, 2) enclosing existing canopy for shops, and 3) site modifications. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission July 27, 1996 Cl — N;F' 07 )r'= To: Joe Werth, City Planner laner From; Lou Bres e, eeetary .. March 6.1996 Recreation Path Comrnm "tee Re: Horner Dubois, 42 Lot Subdivision The Recreation Path Cotnmitree met March 4, 1996 and discussed th. proposed referenced project al, also known as Ledge Knoll Phase III. The NroposAd proj,.ct is located east of Hinesburg Road and west of Muddy Brook. The South 1 uri.ington Off-cial. Map dated October 10, 199E shows a planned recreation patli al M `Muddy gook s:rd access to that area th o�cgh this development would be very desirable The �,xo eastern corners of the proposed de-,eloprrient appear to provide the type of a`;cess that wauld'oe required for a recreation path. The 60 foot right of way on the northern corner wl:uld easily accommodate a bike path but the property is riot very close to :Muddy Brook at .fiat point. The south corner labeled as a storm water retention area is close to Middy Brook and a bike easement through that are would be very desirable. While the design r�f storm water retention. areas is not a topic that tine committee is familiar with it is !rot beli, ved that, potential path needs to be located in an area that is never under water. It i.s therefor�:,1;.)e1xved that an easement around the border of the area may be very satisfactory. We stand ready to discuss our thoughts with either you Or the d v.':operr fi rppAfl�ygh tp •4" ¢ it t�I'b '4i0'sv� h (� Y' � S �a� .r f j�. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington RR eation Path Committee From: Raymond J. Belairr, Anin and Planning Assistant Ym 9 9 Re: Dubois 40 Lot Subdivision Date: June 10, 1996 The Planning Commission will be reviewing the preliminary plat application for a 40 lot subdivision on Dubois Drive on August 13, 1996 (see attached plan). If you have any comments, please submit them to the Planning Commission. n•: GREEN ACRES INC, All )0'v1F. euo CReiN•G[ EesE.eEVT EaYrEhh*� B2• B' E — � J 9.! ri N/ _ �.� �. _ 'n6 _ 7.. u O1 , � "fI•' EeSEMhr •,; w.Dc C�^ Q 1 1 (14 e2•1rB'f r. Sw o t : STl of a�•r00 p 0 .y r 2•E _ A S R 70U TAN7 v ,ir4^^• rsE �zT� E% :1 ��Eos�Bfh m 2,' . S,f.6LRZ DTt•pQvxi 1 n _ ,6 of D tI- 20on.r 'FE o c 2vl F F<H¢EL rt ' OEVf�Ow.uEXi R,GX,s ' $ 0 o Oh 32 AGPE,� c uGr ^- JOzxc.J •�00 Yes�0. of - •c �oE O o!f SE 1— JF Sov 2 I'll, , v. Os,. .f '-SDc00o©E 0 •� 06 3 ^\ Dt O E tf 0 , 000 I S9F ^ D SJ 0� � I B�• f,E J2T1, E E ^ R8 R. FURLONG56 _ score! s/. i tss0Q Tu Ts;,o f' _ g'6O°0o , vai PDer .+ aa_ E� - Y o t rw S.! o CAB' OD R6] aO g t �E,u1 • E i - fSKOc•© a %a oJf b r^B!+ BT llncJ..i.B = Ps'ur1[„T q A. `f15FREN, 1.• Bl. Jl ,6 O $q• �••E 0• 0, 6i''a'•EJ• � lanszr s. .f r00uFDfxi ' .�' v Y,u>Bl sF n Dt•2® � -C ^o' [•a FE 'i '2f E' '9)"00' � M NT f00� •• a, B.f` 00. L: pyp •.;' � Ala Pr.[ _ Itl9 f , E OO.y p.1YJ,9 p��rYo •` •�' �^ wOco' i8660Z I_,... J' ' E B5°X T.\ OR D'�Z'N •ocb. ?E 1 w Q .. 0 g © "' - � 8 pT�E ;R'�A 0 � ® p•.': ro. mswl Se Irol,z s.F 0 O° ®,. aoufr"zB9 s�' '••, r .r .w >x.e^ sr F 'LOW; EB wr 4 > w¢esB.iB4 . Do .mQ . _ e'�' Rcm3s R¢w lI .��( ` wJ w�JJ°�•wc+ q ._�rx � Da �s eJ•s. orpE—� DU$OI$ ocJa ,`> 35 ^ xA sB!•5ois !. o: o —' �, r D;rIB Q _rrnc+�'=s 1 E =a r rB. �¢a• N� � 2AY 00' TTe I loom oo00 a loll eu It fr3B IJ� . Si' u 1 _ f ,w oJ' 2 si u c yD �-Ll� r+gfFD ous. � — - �- - BB fr e+00' SSl. PI 01• 'E! / j �•� n rJ I. a •TO B t p0 13 �E I1 REIMAN _- � w II j= = I ¢ R A P M I C S C A L E FE[T ,n0 •ETE � � BJ 400 W O O JO 0 OBTAIN NETEB5 MOLT FAT .00 YO tlPJ c0 90 120 EFE` , NE5 0.3 • Cu rcw[,E 9ohv,Z, FJu.VJ E co. csf,E Bom:+rcX. sET • eDOV Pli_ /Ou.VJ H AJh P,PE s" usew REMA O LANO e> s 8P• •o .- . M eKELI.'_ RECEIVED -£uRVE DATI WESSEL __ E•s>as �.1. a 0 eeseN2a+aaDa.,.cBPB,w,mI.I.A.SUDl TJ a AUG 2 7 1993 N, FDR coRNOR I. rsrer_ [ cc sc' [ •fD of Is EDR aea,Duhrrhercf,Aro wFPuw of roonhc owuh p.-zvizs- (L� n•>•ze'!o- p p•c:•w'!e' QiB p•r•!I'!r TBs Pw s B+sfo u•Jh I�hE00 [• ec.ca' ucs Bi 'ILI IIIw.�:�. of So. Burlington � p•tl•.:,F ®o ,rY, SUM rO�h lehD D Cp0 TX.� L r6>tl 50[rtT.GDE [wD (1E D � p•IT•OJ'fc' f NA6 ss RCh Sr•XO•wDs •f�N6A AIR EAN Owrroh OF Th[ O GONVEYEO TO AAAANAn.c.uwe [a![v[nr wr, • • •f T.P. R. ! . OUD015 rR v. r)9 w. Ifi .E>YD Jt LEDGE KNOLL SUBDIVISION HOMER & MARIE OUBOIS ...LD %µ'°° HINESBURG RO , SO BURLINGTON TRUOELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS. Inc. TRUDELL CONSUL t INU tNk-1IIN .tKJ, 100t.: 14 Blair I Road Box 308 Williston, Vermont 054 i ) 879-6331 NAME W PROJECT NO. 85a83 DATE LI TG TAX MAP NAME & ADDRESS DEED REFERENCES PLA T� 57- I 161Pz:' -7 Zr � Sox -z S 13 L• 09401 213li,3 3 - a� t/�9 ^� -3' -74 J S �3g ,z ; L o'K��, �v►3o�s �cZ, s Jz•'J' � tTcliuL bvdo�� DQ. 53 '�O D✓3c�5 �j?. Z� ALP; ' SEANLitc M -LIz/117 ✓ Zo9 2G Lai 1e Z� wit t�>✓ Lh y wI�L. �t4 1 ^t!QY �lNi�?jc ►� C� 2r1 2�Z Lam?" I Zu k6 L L r c '$g. !E4 OckNA L� ?57 Z3 lci ZG 30 ;<1-L!� etihcLe '57- i 3 S4 2�E 2,4 1z ,,ALL c r•�1-� S( littc�Mt—' ` Poo &-5A GUCIzrLA ir% Z I SZI,, Z Lei L3 1540 L ILL, (-D, 5-9 14 Ak, 't 5 L) LA C Ltfi(— ?6° M Loci Z. @ he!Vv1l c Ne LLr SvM *41 Sce SOt.t f " tortS ris U A'► City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 40 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: Enclosed is a meeting minutes. JW/mcp 1 Encl ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 May 10, 1996 copy of the April 23, 1996 Planning Commission If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sin erely J Weith, C ty Planner City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 19, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658- 7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls 0 od C CO w � Z Z 4 _ _j V G.oWc SCd. ♦. DD 0 12o EW 360 480 : I I S D F TRl1DELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. u wk Feet eoee em Joe VVlilwt Vt. 054% (eat) 879~ M t OPEN SPACk , 10 i►mfs PIJASE III -- ACRES t '_ — —---------------- ------ j C.O. ZONE 36 37 �38 ; Jr41. 42--- --'� OPEN SPACE ZO ACRES 3 2�'` 1 22 2t j 14 ,J.: FAT-_ ere. -fl i 23 20, 1�-- � r f 33 27 24i ' 1Q 1b 11 131 `N ``, 31 26 1 25� ,r 18 17 10 s x, 30 • %r`{ f (7 i 8 1 9 •� �rE7rn4W .WAt ' raft ---.^ • LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III Hinesburg Road y f Nss& cZMW ACRM r So. Burlington, Vt. Le WrY GLMA7ta616 - MW SO VW) .. .7 uem •.Ir •oe:. esn •ai9 . reJ IMIA rureeer � . rw wrrs - � u.rs - w rrrtrs �� eUq. •rp e.tE p..t9 BAN 2 3 , 1qJ Mpl('s4110 Re.P SWM t�1w, w. dWl Q L greet dd. Sketch Plan I project —ne, 7nr Drawn untr Deft 9115/§ ScaN .r7p' Approved SPI _GREEN ACRES. INC. PHASE III DENSI Y CALCULAT[ONS F >o . 11 UNIf; PER ACRE .85.9E ACRES 91 UNITS 57 ACRES . 1.1 UNITS PER Ar..RE - SA UNI t5 UR ('; OEKLQ WNT AFEA 20 ACRES . 1 UNIV, PER ACRE - 60 UNIES f t`' � t i 1993 RECORD DNNER �I -- NlA/EF AND MARfE WB 11 1.05 NINESONFY. RLtAO 5[MIM81vRINt.Rri. �t m,Nl City of So. Burlington w p TRUI ELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 5" P.* Road box M Whom Vt 05495 (802) 8794M —- Project Location Q -- sy ROVIOW . ho).[t W. LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. St—t Sketch Plan IIJM[t I.x bf -... N.'+18l51__ but _.. !. rmw,t 1 xs01 — !m— --. DraM _MAN De.IU�15�9! 5L'..le Ct-f." ApWOV.d t t2o 0 120 240 mo 400 SPI SUMMER ICE JOINT VENTURE TRU®ELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 94 Blab Park Road Box 308 W WSton, vt 05495 (802) 899-"1 ■■ S 82' 53' 15' E /. A. C 1 S 82' 24' 4'01' E x V Z tip " 1042.51' / 09' E I 7PENNINRAINARD 3A0 '1 I D LEE .740_ AIRPORT APPROACH CONE R. & P. SMITH \ \ \ L.\ \ -------------------------------------------------_� = --,_ _\ LOT) LOT 9 / OPEN SPACE 'LOT 8 33.2 ACRES * / �' LOT ?// //LOT 6 , LOT J. & S. CLEARr LOT 34 .'LOT 5" / ,' LOT 35 J. & S. HOOD LOT 36 i R. & L. OKELLEY I / /X,6T/4, / LOTi26 z r /I// - LOT 37 LOT 25 / v �OT i LOIT 38 LOT 24 / L�T �2 T 39 LOT 23 LOT � g LOT/ 20/ ' I EXISTINGD.I. I LOT, 1 LOT 40 LOT 22 WATER MAIN HYDRANT B0 BUFFER ) l /I\�0/ J. & R. FTNNIGAN EXISTING SANITARY PUMP STATION — EXISTING CAP — AND THRUST BLOCK 100 D. WESSEL Graphk Scale Feet 0 100 200 300 400 - 348 10 LOT 11 UaT12--6DI-13-- - - - - - - 'L --344 LOT 14 ,342 cU r � , 340 / / • LOZ''Y5 33B LLI U 331 LOT 3 LOT//31 LOT 30,1 . ' /336 Q z Lp ( 27, 1AT 28 LOT 29, / LOT 16 / / OT / / . / ------------ 'OPEN SPACE / 3.7 ACRES ± I / S 82' K' 34' E I EXISTING 15' WIDE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT DENSITY CALCULATIONS - ZONE SEQ (PRD) 1.2 UNITS PER ACRE X 85.98 ACRES = 103 UNITS MAXIMUM 103 UNITS - 57 UNITS - 46 UNITS LOTS ARE MINIMUM 1Z000 S.F. RECORD OWNER HOMER AND MARIE DUBOIS 1405 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. 05401 GREEN ACRES, INC. 141Ly t1I . 1 1 ,,'�91 Project Locatton Q Description Date By Revlslans ow,� aaoauz narlm: am n.u., .AzlDe an a Pro)ect tMe LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, Vt. Sheet dtle Project number 8508352 Ext. i Propect manager JTH Drawn DPB Date 03/20/96 Scale /=f00 Approved �I PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 M E M O R A N D U M To: Recreation Path Committee ,'toning and Planning Assistant From: Raymond J. Belair'�' Re: Homer Dubois, 42 Lot Subdivision Date: April 19, 1996 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Homer Dubois has just revised the layout of his proposed subdivision which you reviewed at your March, 1996 meeting. Enclosed is a copy of his latest proposal. The Planning Commission will review this sketch plan at their April 23, 1996 meeting. If you have any comments on this proposal, you may make them at this meeting. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 29, 1996 Bruce C. Chattman Superintendent of Schools 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: School Impact Dear Bruce: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The South Burlington Planning Commission is currently reviewing proposals for three (3) residential developments. These developments are as follows: 1. Irish development on Allen Road consisting of 42 single family lots. The Commission will review the sketch plan for this proposal on April 9, 1996. 2. Centennial Heights development on Patchen Road consisting of 92 condominiums (46 two (2) bedroom units and 46 three (3) bedroom units) . The Commission will review the final plat for this proposal on April 16, 1996. 3. Homer Dubois, Ledge Knoll Phase III on Dubois Drive consisting of 42 single family lots. The Commission will review the sketch plan for this proposal on April 23, 1996. A plan for each of these developments is enclosed. If you would like to comment on these proposals please submit them by the Friday proceeding the meeting at which the proposal will be reviewed. If you have any questions, please give me a call. I Jo#Weith, Ci Planner JW / mcp Encls nuv i-1.747-- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 ) Name of Applicant Homer and Marie Dubois 2 ) Name of Subdivision Ledgeknoll Phase III 3) Submit Subdivision Fee 4) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of land use, gross floor area for commercial or industrial uses) • 40 residential lots on 33 acres, 12000 s.f. lots served by municipal water and sewer lines 5) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone numbers of owner of record, applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: none 6) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer Tyler Hart, P.E., Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 b. Surveyor Scott Taylor, Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 C. d. Plat Designer Tyler Hart, P.E. Same address as above 7) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since sketch plan application: No such changes 1 8) List names and mailing addresses of owners of record of all contiguous properties: spP arra(_hf i list of aburring landowners 9) State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, and designer(s) of the preliminary map(s) accompanying this application: Master plan SP1, Site plans SP2, SP3, Profiles P1. P2, Details D1,D2,D3,D4,D5 10) COST ESTIMATES for Planned Unit Developments, multi -family and commercial and industrial complexes: a) Buildings N/A b ) Landscapingpercentage of const cost per City Requirements c) All other site improvements (e.g., curb work Read and infrastrurture at $ 200/ lineal footx3300 ft = $ 660,000 11) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC for Planned Unit Developments, multi- family projects, and commercial and industrial complexes (2-way traffic, in plus out): A.M. Peak hour 32 T.E, P.M. peak hour 43 T.E. Average daily traffic 414 T. E. % `/o of trucks 12) Attach FIVE copies and ONE reduced copy (11 x 17) of preliminary map showing the following information: a) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the City., b) Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. c) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 2 d) The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. e) The location and size of any existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdi- vided. f) Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks and other public or privately main- tained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. g) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades where change of exist- ing ground elevation will be five feet or more. h) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. i) Numerical and graphic scale, date and truce north arrow. j) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative means of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. k) Details of proposed connection with the existing sani- tary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 1) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed, location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface soil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. m) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. n) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culvert which may be required. o) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic layout in the field. Unless on existing street intersection is. shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. p) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 3 13) Development timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates): Start fall 1996, Phases according to market conditi anticipatiiing3 year buildout. 14) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: Done 15) 1) All existing subdivision, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the records owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street adjoining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing, filed or pro- posed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the subdivider's entire holding. ( Sigr)4ture ) i cant or contact person 4 (��i�� Y��l�� ����� -� �/z� M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wallace Possich, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: Plans Reviewed for March 12, 1996 Agenda Date: February 5, 1996 I have reviewed the following site plans and my comments are as follows: 1. Merchants Bank Dated 1/18/96 White Street Project No. 95318 Acceptable 2. National Gardening Dated 1/19/96 Farrell Street Project No. 94276 Acceptable 3. New Motel, Four Stories Dated 1/24/96 White Street Project No. 9604 Acceptable 4. Ledge Knoll, Phase III Dated 1/23/96 Hinesburg Road Project No. 85083-5 Acceptable 5. Meadowbrook Joy Drive I would require a flow test from the existing hydrant to determine if a second hydrant is needed, and if so, the best location for a new hydrant. 6. Centennial Heights Dated 2/5/96 Patchen Road Project No. 94049-41 Acceptable City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 8, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 12, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely /illlo ith,� City Planner JW/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Re reation Path Committee d J. Belai , nin and Planning Assistant From: Raymond J g 9 Re: Homer Dubois, 42 Lot Subdivision Date: February 26, 1996 The Planning Commission will be reviewing a sketch plan (see enclosed) for a proposed 42 lot subdivision at the end of Dubois Drive on 3/12/96. Please review this plan and submit written comments by 3/8/96. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 1, 1996 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 42 Lot PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself. Comments from Fire Chief Wally Possich will be forwarded as soon as they are available. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than Friday, March 1, 1996. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc�ely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: March 12, 1996 Agenda Items Date: January 26, 1996 MERCHANTS BANK - WHITE STREET 1. Sidewalk along White Street is continuous across the driveways. 2. The bank if they sell their adjacent lot should anticipate the possibility of a connection to their parking lot and connection to their utilities especially storm drainage. NATIONAL GARDENING - FARRELL STREET Revised site plan received 1/19/96 prepared by Civil Engineering Associates is acceptable. LEDGE KNOLL - PHASE III - HINESBURG ROAD 1. There is no need for the Dubois Drive cul-de-sac. It should be eliminated. 2. Dubois Drive sewage pumping station, Lane Press pumping station, the force mains from both pumping stations and the gravity line on Kimball Avenue must be checked for capacity. 3. The Wessel property to the south had a development plan. This plan should be checked to be sure there is conformance especially for intersecting streets. 4. There should be a 20 foot utility easement along lot 36 to access the 10 acre open space. MEMORANDUM To: Applicants/Project ilEng From: Raymond J. Belair and Planning Assistant Re: Preliminary Comments, March 12, 1996 Agenda Items Date: January 31, 1996 MERCHANTS BANK - SITE MODIFICATIONS - SITE PLAN --- provide existing and proposed front yard coverage information. If front yard coverage is currently exceeded (30% maximum) and the proposed property line adjustment results in increased coverage, staff can not administratively approve the boundary line adjustment. --- show all existing landscaping. --- show existing dumpster storage area. This area should be screened. --- show existing parking lot lights. --- staff encourages the applicant to show an access connection with the property to the west. WRIGHT & MORRISSEY. INC. - EXPAND OFFICE BUILDING - REVISED FINAL PLAT --- provide additional construction cost for the additional square footage proposed. --- provide revised sewer allocation request, if changing. --- revised final plat should include a landscaping plan. HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT SUBDIVISION - SKETCH PLAN --- plan should indicate that the northerly boundary is the boundary between the IO District to the north and the SEQ District to the south. --- the correct name of Highland Drive is Highland Terrace. --- the stormwater retention lots and the open space lot should have some type of designation (e . g. , common area "A", etc. . --- lot #42 does not meet the frontage requirement on the "loop" road. Incorporating the proposed 60 foot r . o . w. to this lot would appear to solve this problem. --- Dubois Drive, a cul-de-sac street, currently provides access to 50 single family dwelling units and this proposal would add 42 units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units served by a cul-de-sac street to 50 units. Preliminary Comments - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items January 31, 1996 Page 2 --- portions of lots 10-13, 20,21, 35-39 and 42 are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. For preliminary plat review, applicant should delineate the wetlands on the property to show that lots #35 - 39 and portions of lots #21 and 29 are not in a wetland area. Applicant should also verify that there is not a stream and associated C . O. District along the easterly boundary. --- portions of lots #36-38 which are located within a CO zone can not be developed unless the requirements of Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations are met. Applicant should explain purpose of C . 0. District shown on the plan and submit a written report addressing Section 3.50 of the zoning regulations. -- staff suggests that a r. o . w. be reserved to the south between lots #6 and 7 or in the vicinity of lot #3. --- applicant should provide a 20 foot pedestrian easement to access the open space to the north. GABE HANDY - 60 UNIT MOTEL - SITE PLAN --- plan should include lot dimensions and lot size. --- minimum landscaping requirement of $10,500 is not being met. Landscaping proposed is $5676 short of the requirement. Plan should be revised to add more landscaping to meet the requirement. Staff recommends street trees instead of crabapples along the street. --- indicate location of nearest fire hydrant. -- a total of 62 parking spaces are required and 60 spaces are being provided. Applicant should be prepared to justify this shortfall. --- parallel parking spaces must be at least 22 feet in length. --- indicate snow storage area. --- provide building elevation. --- the road impact fee will be approximately $6600. --- provide total number of per person sleeping spaces (for sewer calculation) . --- a portion of a parking space is located within the driveway to Zachary's property. --- applicant is encouraged to provide a connection with the Merchants Bank property to the east as described in the enclosed "Notice of Condition of Site Plan Approval". CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 b. Applicant Same C. Contact person Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 308, Williston, VT 05495 879-6331 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 4z.( _ single family lots 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee Simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Green Acres (north) William Mikell (east) William Wessell (Go»th) 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. none 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Sewer, water, streets, drainage 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: None 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties, 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities,, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. %'Z3-9b. date dubois TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, lIN_ f 14 Rlgir Park RnaA PCl Rnv InR MMOnn VT OU05% 1 V. ,JVG V YGlll 1 5 r 5 corset Street South Burlington. Vermont 05403 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawinqs ❑ Specifications i F7T9rCD !lam 'TD A -XTQ'N ATT'T Alf oats: 01 /23/96 Pro,eci : 85083 Re: ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Covv of letter ❑ Chanae Order ❑ COPIES I DATE I NO DESCRIPTION I LvUytimi iUii 0mutt l i riai i i 1 I I 11 1 Y17" gkAfinh Plan I I I I 1 c'.h ilT f So Burlinryton THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ REMARKS: Joe in this plan we have addressed the issues of densitv.and approach cone measurements. We have found other sites where the second access is throua_h commercial or industrial sites. This will probabiv be the issue here. Copied to: Signed: Tyler Hart City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 1, 1993 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 68 Unit PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the October 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note that a preliminary plat application must be submitted within six (6) months of the sketch plan review. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S Ak- J e Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Homer Dubois - • • I ♦ • ♦ I • ♦ • I ♦ • . • I I • t r • s • r ♦ w r • w w • s e s • e r � • n r . • m n • ♦ r • e e w • ♦ • • • r } ♦ n • ♦ r e I t-iea�r-AAol�-- vnt I 11 � � 9 v lL City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 22, 1993 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 68 Unit PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission 4 meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Jim Goddette were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 26, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si erel , oe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Homer Dubois TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. October 13, 1993 Ray Belair, Asst. Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Ledgeknoll Dear Ray; Enclosed are five copies of the revised sketch plan with your comments addressed. We understand that the density calculations are not final yet. If you have any questions please call. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. T III art, P.E. P.O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 M E M O R A N D U M To: Project Files I(* From. Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: Preliminary Comments, October 26, 1993 agenda items Date: October 8, 1993 NORMAN CHAPPELL - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION -SKETCH PLAN --- submit an ll'xl7' reduced copy of the sketch plan. --- building coverage percentage for lot #1 should read 14.2%. For preliminary plat review: --- applicant must obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to exceed the 40% overall coverage limit on lot #1. --- individual parking spaces for lot #1 must be shown. --- describe use(s) in the building on lot #1 with corresponding square footage including square footage of retail floor area. HOMER DUBOIS - 68 UNIT PRD - SKETCH PLAN Sketch plan must be amended to show the following: --- address of record owners --- type of, location and approximate size of existing and proposed utilities. --- date --- location map --- correct abutter to the east is Green Acres, Inc. not Mikell. Tcc­o --- this project involves extending a cul-de-sac street and adding 68 units. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 57 dwelling units and this application seeks to add 68 more units for a total of 125 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul- de-sac to 50 units. --- the northerly and easterly portions of the proposed development are located in a restricted area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. The plan should show the boundaries of the restricted area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. Acreage must be calculated for both the restricted and buildable areas. This information will be used to determine allowable density. Preliminary Memo - Planning October 26, 1993 agenda items October 8, 1993 page 2 --- since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 26.606 of the zoning regulations. Since this project is also a Planned Residential Development, the applicant must also address the criteria in Section 19.15 of the zoning regulations. The applicant should address these criteria in a report submitted to the Planning Commission. --- the zoning in this area has change since the Ledgeknoll development was approved in 1984. The number of units that a lot can generate for development is based on 1.1 units per acre. The maximum density allowed in the buildable area is four (4) units per acre. Other: --- there is a 100 foot wide C.O. zone running through lots #29,59 and 60 (50 foot on either side of the stream). This must be shown on the plan. --- all wetlands must be delineated. --- the Official Map shows a proposed recreation path/pedestrian trail running east -west between the end of Dubois Drive and the Mikell property line. A 20 foot easement for this path/trail should be shown. LTH ASSOCIATES - PARKING MODIFICATIONS - SITE PLAN --- existing and proposed coverage percentages for both lots must be submitted (building, overall and front yard). It appears that the existing front yard coverage exceeds the limits and this application is making it worse. This can't be done. --- provide gross square footage for Wendy's and the office building (including basements if any). --- describe all uses in all buildings at 388 Shelburne Road. Include square footage and retail floor area. -- proposed traffic circulation pattern for 388 Shelburne Road should be shown. The access drive north of the storage building connecting the two ( 2 ) parking areas is 10 feet wide. This will allow only one-way traffic. This should be widened to accommodate 2-way traffic if possible. --- staff recommends that since there will be one-way traffic north of Wendy's flowing in a westerly direction that the spaces be angled. --- handicapped spaces must be shown. OCT93.MEM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Recreation Path Conunittee RE: Homer Dubois 68 lot PRD DATE: 13 October 1993 The Rec Path Committee has the following reconunendations regarding recreation easements in the proposed Dubois development: 1 The developer should donate a 20' wide easement running approximately north -south to connect from his proposed street and sidewalk network to the easements previously donated in the Greenacres Development to the north. 2 The developer should donate a 20' wide easement running approximately NW -SE to connect from his proposed street and sidewalk network to the proposed greenway along Muddy Brook. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 7, 1993 Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: 68 Unit PRD, Dubois Drive Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please respond to their comments with additional information and/or revised plans by no later than Friday, October 15, 1993. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc ely, Ra nd J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 3 Encl RJB/mcp cc: Homer Dubois M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: August 13, 1996 Agenda Items Date: July 29, 1996 LEDGEKNOLL PHASE III - HINESBURG ROAD 1. The island between the cul-de-sac and the new development shall be at least 4 feet in width. The two foot width is to narrow for signs that have to be installed. 2. Footing drains should be equipped with back flow preventers especially those that connect to the street storm system. 3. Storm water detention basins shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. 4. Telephone and electric lines should be installed outside of the street r.o.w. in an easement. 5. Trees must not be planted on top of utility lines especially water and sewer lines. 6. The large vacant land in the north-east corner should have a 60 foot r.o.w. to access it. SHERATON INN - WILLISTON ROAD 1. Site plan dated 4/29/96 prepared by Trudell Engineering is acceptable. NEW MOTEL (HANDY) - WHITE STREET 1. Site plan should include contour and elevations. 2. Surface drains shall include elevations and pipe sizes. 3. Site includes several mature trees they should be shown and which will be saved. TORNEY PROPERTY - COTTAGE GROVE AVENUE 1. Site plan received 5/20/96 is acceptable. TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY OCTOBER 28,1993 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 22,1993 2. 3. 4 5. MUNSON PROPERTY PROJECT # 91098 1860 WILLISTON ROAD THE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED ON THE USE OF THE BUILDING B THE WOOD WORKERS WAREHOUSE AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WHICH WOULD EFFECT OUR SERVICE. ` LTH ASSOCIATES 410 SHELBURNE ROAD PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED ON THE NEW PARKING AREA AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WHERE IT EFFECT EMERGENCY PROTECTION. � LEDGE KNOLL PHASE III HOMER & MARIE DUBOIG THE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED ON THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANT SYSTEM BEFORE THE PLAN IS APPROVED. M � MAR NORIETTA CHAPPELL PROJECT # 92068-50 �� ���� � WILLISTON ROAD AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE SUB- DIVISION BEING REQUESTED FOR BY THE CHAPPELLS. R. LAWERENCE ROBERTS DATED 8/93 � 3082 & 3090 WILLISTON ROAD ^ THE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WHICH WOULD EFFECT EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF NEEDED FOR WHAT MR. ROBERTS WISH TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR. 1 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington R ceation Path Committee From: Raymond J. Belair Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: Homer Dubois 68 Lot PRD Date: September 27, 1993 Homer Dubois has made application to the Planning Commission for a 68 lot subdivision at the end of Dubois Drive (see enclosed map). The sketch plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on 10/28/93. Please review this development and forward any comments to the Planning Commission. Please note that the Official Map shows a proposed recreation path/pedestrian trail running east -west between the end of Dubois Drive and the Mikell property. A larger copy of the plan will be provided for your meeting. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Homer and Marie Dubois 1405 Hinesburg Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 b. Applicant Same C. Contact person Tyler Hart, P.E. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 308, Williston VT 05495 879-6331 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). 68 single family lots 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Fee Simple 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Green Acres (north) William Mikell (east) William Wessell (south) 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. none 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Sewer, water, streets, drainage 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: None 8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties, 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities,, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. - � 3 (Signe) applicant or contact erson date dubois No Text Ila- ) AGREEMEN T ) ` " 6 71 THIS AGREEMENT made this day of August, 1984, by and between HOMER L. DUBOIS and MARIE J. DUBOIS, husband and wife, of South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Grantors") and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation situated in Chittenden County, Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Munic- ipality"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the Owners of certain lands in the Municipality which they acquired by deed of Allen F. Gear, Trustee to Reconvey dated October 4, 1982 and recorded in Volume 179 at Pages 126 of the Land Records of the Municipality; and WHEREAS, the Grantors are developing said lands as a residen- tial development to be known as Ledge Knoll Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have received final subdivision approval from the Municipality's Planning Commission for their project; and WHEREAS, the Grantors in presenting their proposal to the Planning Commission agreed that certain lands would remain in their open state in consideration for the final subdivision and planned residential approval; and WHEREAS, the Grantors and the Municipality recognize the value of retaining the rural character of said lands and preserving them in their natural, scenic and open condition and in so doing fur- thering their aesthetic, agricultural and ecological value; and r 4HEREAS, Title 10, Cl -)ter 155, Vermont Statutes rrinotated, permits Vermont municipalities to acquire interest in land in the nature of conservation and open space easements; and WHEREAS, the Municipality desires to acquire a conservation and open space easement regarding certain lands of the Grantors in furtherance of the purposes enumerated in 10 V.S.A. §6301. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors for and in consideration of the Planning Commission's approval of their subdivision and the facts above recited and of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions herein contained and as an absolute and unconditional transfer do hereby freely give, grant and convey unto the Municipality, its successors and assigns forever, a conservation and open space easement or restriction over the land consisting of 20.52 acres and designated "Parcel A" on a survey plat by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. entitled "Ledge Knoll Subdivision, Homer and Marie DuBois", dated 11/16/83 and revised 8/10/84 which is of record in Map Vol.. \�c Page .y a- of the City of South Burlington Land Records, hereinafter "property", except the Grantors are not waiving or relinquishing their rights to develop 69 units of housing on land designated on said survey plan as "REMAINING LAND" consisting of 32.89 acres, said easement consisting of the following: - 1. The right of public view of the property in its natural, scenic and open condition; 2. The right of the official representatives of the Town, in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to enter and inspect :he property; -2- U 3. The right of the Municipality and Municipality alone to enforce by injunction or proceedings at law or in equity, the covenants hereinafter set forth; and in furtherance of the forego- ing affirmative rights, the Grantors, for themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, make the following covenants, which shall run with and bind the property in perpetuity: a. There shall be no construction or placing of any buildings or structures of any kind, temporary or permanent on the property once the project is finally completed, except the Grantors their successors or assigns, shall have the right, subject to the written approval of the Planning Commission, to construct permanent recreational facilities such as tennis courts or other similar improvements. b. There shall be no filling, excavating, dredging, mining or drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, miner- als or other materials, nor any building of roads or change in the topography of the land in any manner. C. The Grantors, their successors or assigns, shall have the right to maintain the open space area in an orderly and pre- sentable manner including the right to plant shrubbery from time to time and to keep the grass trimmed and to take any other normal maintenance action in maintaining the pleasant appearance of the open space. d. There shall be no dumping of ashes, trash, garbage or other unsightly or offensive material, and no changing of the topography through the placing of soil or other substance of IBM I materials such as—Adfill except as required during construction and completion of the project: as approved. e. There shall be no operation of snowmobiles, dune buggies, motorcycles, all -terrain vehicles or any other types of motorized vehicles on the property. f. There shall be no activities or uses on the property which shall be detrimental or could be detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, fish and wildlife or habitat preservation. The Grantors, for themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, agree to pay any real estate taxes or other assessments levied by competent authorities on the property and to relieve the Municipality from responsibility for maintaining the property. The Grantors agree that the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this grant will be inserted by reference in any subsequent deed or other legal instrument by which the Grantors divest themselves of either fee simple title or possessory interest in the said Remaining Land consisting of 32.89 acres which is situated easterly of the land subject to this Agreement. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said conservation easement and re- striction unto the Municipality and its successors and assigns forever. It is the intention of the parties hereto that the grant of easements and covenants herein is pursuant to the authority set forth in Title 10, Chapter 155, Vermont Statutes Annotated, as presently enacted and from time to time hereinafter amended, and -4- G -at all of the prov-'i)ions of said Chapter shal- �e binding upon the Grantors, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and upon the property and shall inure to the benefit of the Municipality its successors and assigns. If any part of this Agreement shall be decreed to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decree shall not be interpreted so as to invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. Although this conservation restriction and easement will benefit the public as provided above, nothing herein shall be construed to convey a right to the public of access or use of the property and the Grantors for themselves and their heirs, execu- tors, administrators and assigns shall retain exclusive right to use the property for all purposes not inconsistent with this conservation restriction and easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors hereunder set their hands and seals this ` day of August, 1984. In the presence of as to HLD & MJD i as to HLD & MJD I Homer L. DuBois L.S. Marie J-:" DuBois -S-