Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 12/18/2018
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 December 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; R. Gonda, D. Murdoch, S. Dopp, D. Sherman, D. Peters, B. C. Toline, S. Partilo, N. Hyman, D. Crawford, R. Greco, S. Hartman, R. Rushlow, B. Bartlett, G. Mortgone, P. Kahn, R. Brinkerhoff, D. Wheeler, T. Perreprow, L. Hammond, D. Seff, P. Smiar, P. O’Leary, M. Boucher, B. Currier, A. Shields 1.Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2.Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #9 to follow item #5. 3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4.Announcements: Mr. Miller noted that he will be leaving the Board along with Ms. Smith will be leaving the Board at the end of his term which means there will be 2 openings as of 1 July. 5.Miscellaneous permit application #MS‐18‐07 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Kennedy Drive. The upgrades consist of replacing a stormwater detention basin with a gravel wetland and expansion of the treatment practice to the north and east, West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive: Mr. Wheeler noted that when Kennedy Drive was widened, 7 stormwater ponds were installed. The city is now looking to upgrade them. One issue is water that is going by pond #3, and this will be addressed. They will also modify ponds 2 and 7 in the near future. The work for this will be entirely funded by the State. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Wheeler then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 – Regarding limiting the duration of the permit, Mr. Wheeler said the goal is to bid the project in January and finish by November. Mr. Miller suggested a 2‐year limit. Mr. Wheeler said that would be fine. #2 – Regarding encroachment into the wetland, Mr. Wheeler provided a letter from the State of Vermont Wetland Program that no wetland permit is needed. Staff considers the Board cannot make use of the findings of the wetland program for evaluating compliance with the standards for wetland protection. Mr. Wilking asked how wildlife will be affected. Mr. Wheeler said they are not adding runoff, but reducing the amount of water going into the wetland. This will provide a significant improvement to the stream, wetland, Lake and wildlife. #3 – There is a significant improvement in phosphorus reduction (from 0% removal to 60% removal). They have State approval dated 12 December 2018. #4 – Regarding landscaping, some invasives will be removed. The 250 sq. ft. of impact will be restored. Mr. Hyman said there were problems caused by another such project, including destruction of wildlife. Mr. Wilking responded that the applicant has said it will improve the quality of wildlife in the wetland. Mr. Wheeler said the Department has considered wildlife. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close MS‐18‐07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 6. (formerly #9) Minutes of 4 December 2018: Mr. Kochman said his concern for accommodating musicians may have been overstated. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 4 December 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 7.(formerly #6) Miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternate compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi‐Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a 20,200 sq. ft., 100‐room, 5‐story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 Ms. Keene noted the Board can review only the project entrance requirement. Mr. Smiar reviewed the history of the project and noted they had incorporated the thoughts of the Board. He showed a rendering of the proposed entrances. The door facing Williston Road will be a functional public entrance during business hours. There is also an interior door available only to guests via a key card. Mr. Wilking said if you’re only walking into a lobby, he still has the same issue. The applicant indicated they have considered the possibility of an art gallery in that lobby. Mr. Miller said if it is an entrance to the hotel, it should be accessible to the hotel or there should be a buzzer system. The applicant indicated they can do a buzzer system. Ms. Keene said staff feels that meets the requirement. Mr. Cota moved to close MS‐18‐06. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 8.(formerly #7) Master Plan Application #MP‐18‐01 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single‐family homes, 26 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: and 9.(formerly #8) Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐18‐29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single‐family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking and Mr. Sullivan recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Wilking retained his party status. Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Wilking will not have a greater influence given to his comment because of his Board status. Mr. Miller noted the attorney representing a group of neighbors has asked for a postponement. Members felt comfortable proceeding. Mr. Kochman noted that Mr. Seff can file a motion to “stay” the proceedings. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Miller noted receipt of written comments and noted that everyone will be given the opportunity to speak with a 2‐minute limit. There will be a strict 9:30 deadline to the hearing which will be continued at that time. Mr. Boucher said they will present changes from the last hearing following meetings with staff. Review of the GIS resulted in a minor shift of the zoning boundary. Mr. Boucher indicated where on the plan. He recommended continuing the hearing to update the plan to incorporate this shift. The application is now for 154 units 95 single‐family, 35 town house style multi‐family, and 24 duplexes throughout the neighborhood. They have eliminated one access to Nowland Farm Road and now have only one wetland crossing. There is also direct access to Dorset Street. Stormwater storage has been split into two separate units. The internal green spaces have been widened and now connect to the natural resource zone (Mr. Boucher indicated this on the plan). They also created a green connection as common space with a walking path. Almost every lot now back up to green space. The project’s main road, Dewberry has been oriented toward Camel’s Hump. Recreational elements have been added including benches, passive recreation areas, rec paths, a small playground area with basketball courts (Mr. Boucher indicated the location on the plan). They plan to maintain a large open field and additional green areas on the edges of the neighborhood. They meet all landscape requirements. There will be delineation between backyards and common areas by plantings and boulders. Mr. Boucher showed lighting areas at the intersections and street crossings. Mr. Kochman said the plan looks like 3 distinct neighborhoods: multi‐family, multi‐family and single family. He asked if they can be integrated. Mr. Boucher noted there are changes in the zoning that affect this. There are also environmental concerns. Mr. Miller noted the zoning change is a Planning Commission issue. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 ‐ Site coverage will be updated. #2 – Staff considers Elderberry Rd. a connector road because it will eventually connect to the property to the south. The Board agreed. #3 – The applicant will designate open space consistently. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 #4 – A traffic impact study was submitted. The city’s third party reviewed it. The applicant commented on the review and is waiting for a response. They are OK with the staff’s proposed condition. #5 – Ms. Keene noted the city has studied one of the intersections (Spear St. and Nowland Farm Road) and is looking at options. #6 – The applicant is OK with review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Mr. Kahn said they will provide elevations for the multi‐family buildings. #8 – Each phase will include some communal elements. The applicant noted the elements in each of the proposed phases. #9 – The applicant is OK with the designation of the pre‐construction grade and will consider whether to flatten the rear yard grading. #10 – No lot width to depth ratio will be less than 1:1. The Board and applicant are OK with that. #11 – Lots 82‐88 have already been reconfigured. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has requested to relocate the district boundary line by 50’. There are additional green areas shown which will be conserved. #12 – The applicant will provide updated coverages after reconfiguration. #13 – The applicant will provide overall building and lot coverage calculations. Mr. Kochman noted that a submission from a group of adjoining property owners challenged the development on the grounds that it could not meet one of the requirements of section 15.18 of the LDR requiring consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because a portion of the developed area is overlain by a primary conservation area shown on Map #7 attached to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan states promotion of conservation of important natural resources as a goal. Mr. Kochman asked the applicant if the sketch provided by the adjoiners overlaying Map #7 and the Project was accurate, which the applicant’s representative said he was not prepared to do inasmuch as he was seeing the sketch for the first time. At the request of the Chair, the Director of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Conner, testified that the plan appears to be blow up DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 6 of a portion of Map #7, and that the riparian area appears to overlay the project. Mr. Kochman told the applicant that, in that case, based on his understanding of the applicable law, he would like the applicant to demonstrate how the Project doesn’t violate the goals and objectives of the district. Mr. Kochman cited the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations which have been reviewed by the courts. The “aspirations” are not binding, but the “requirements” are. Mr. Kochman pointed out that the opponents have pointed out the need to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He advised the applicant to come back and indicate how they don’t violate the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The applicant then presented the Preliminary Plat and addressed the staff comments as follows: #1 – They are OK with providing the option to purchase TDRs. #2 – They are willing to look at alternative building designs to comply (along Elderberry Lane). No two adjacent buildings will be the same style. Mr. Boucher showed where waivers would apply to setbacks, from 20 feet to 15 feet on the front and 5 feet on the side. #3 – They will comply with the view protection zone. #4 ‐The applicant is okay with the payment methodology. #5 – Same response as in Master Plan re: traffic study. #6 – The applicant will accommodate review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Addressed above (providing elevations). #8 – Will provide revised stormwater plans. #9 – Addressed above (preconstruction grade). #10 – The applicant will show electric and telecom lines. #11 – The applicant will incorporate unit design guidelines. #12 – The easement has been provided. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 7 #13 – The applicant indicated the location of dumpsters which will be screened. #14 – The applicant will submit an open space management plan. #15 – They will present a plan showing the mature trees to be preserved. #16 – The applicant will obtain a preliminary wastewater allocation. #17 – The applicant will provide a draft of the homeowners’ agreement including open space management. #18 – The Board approves the parking layout as proposed. Ms. Keene noted the Board has to explicitly grant a waiver for parking on side of the street in the areas indicated. #19 – There will be no variations from the standard indicated. #20 – They will revise the single‐family corner type floor plans to meet the regulations. #21 – They will demonstrate that they have a permit for the wetland crossing. #22 – The Board was okay with the wetland permit being provided at the time of the first zoning permit. Mr. Miller asked about the price range of the proposed homes. Mr. Kahn estimated from the high $200,000s on “affordable” homes to $400,000‐$600,000 on premium lots. Public comment was then made as follows: Mr. Seff: Represents 14 interested persons who have been identified on a handout. They do not feel the Board has jurisdiction to hear this application. They feel the plan does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan as there is development planned in a primary conservation area. This area is supposed to be protected, not destroyed. Mr. Miller said the Board will analyze which maps are appropriate. Ms. Dopp: Questioned the moving of the boundary line. Ms. Keene read from the LDRs the appropriate passage. She noted the applicant has compensated for the shift elsewhere on the property. #MS‐18‐07 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MS‐18‐07_W Twin Oaks & Kennedy_CityOfSouthBurlington_storm_ffd_draft.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 14, 2018 Application received: December 7, 2018 West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive Miscellaneous Application #MS‐18‐07 Meeting date: December 18, 2018 Owner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant David Wheeler South Burlington Department of Public Works 104 Landfill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0970‐00098_N Park & Recreation Zoning District 3.03 acres Engineer Hoyle Tanner & Associates, Inc. 125 College Street – 4th Floor Burlington, VT 05401 Location Map #MS‐18‐07 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Miscellaneous permit application #MS‐18‐07 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Kennedy Drive. The upgrades consist of replacing a stormwater detention basin with a gravel wetland and expansion of the treatment practice to the north and east, West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) has reviewed the plans submitted on 12/7/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The improvements are proposed to take place on one parcel which is owned by the City of South Burlington. The property is located within the Park & Recreation zoning district. The applicant has not indicated the area tributary to the subject treatment practice. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A City permit is needed for the placing or removing of fill on land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. Based on the provided plans, the applicant is proposing to remove common borrow material and import engineered material to create the proposed stormwater treatment practices. Quantity estimates are not available at this time but the applicant estimates that greater than 20 cubic yards of material will be placed. Provided site plans show the soil to be removed and the material to be placed as well as the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. B.Standards and Conditions for Approval. (2)The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a)Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b)Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (c)Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. (d)Determination of what shall constitute pre‐construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The applicant has provided an erosion control detail sheet, C‐3.3, which describes in narrative form how the site shall be protected against soil erosion. They have also submitted a landscaping plan, C‐2.4, which illustrates how the site will be rehabilitated at the completion of construction. 1.Staff recommends the Board consider whether to impose a condition limiting the duration of the permit, otherwise considers these criteria met. #MS‐18‐07 3 Article 12: Surface Water Protection Standards The Project is located approximately 400 feet from Potash Brook, and includes impacts to a Class II wetland buffer. 12.02E Standards for Wetland Protection (1)Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2)Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. The applicant has submitted a letter from the State of Vermont Wetlands Program indicating that no wetland permit is needed for the proposed work. Therefore Staff considers that the Board cannot make use of on the findings of the Wetlands Program for evaluating compliance with the standards for wetland protection. (3)Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a)The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; The Project expands the size of the existing stormwater treatment practice and as a result, reduces the total size of the wetland by placement of embankment fill. Staff understands that conversion from a detention basin to a gravel wetland can sometimes result in a reduction of the ability of the stormwater practice to detain water. 2.The applicant has not submitted documentation demonstrating that the stormwater treatment practice will decrease peak flow rates to the wetland to compensate for the reduced wetland size, therefore Staff considers at this time it is not feasible to determine whether this criterion is met. Staff recommends the Board discuss this issue with the applicant. (b)The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; Staff understands that a gravel wetland is generally more protective of water quality than a detention basin. 3.The applicant has not submitted documentation of the performance of the proposed gravel wetland nor have they submitted documentation of State review and approval of the proposed reconfiguration, therefore Staff considers at this time it is not feasible to determine whether this criterion is met. Staff recommends the Board discuss this issue with the applicant. (c)The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. #MS‐18‐07 4 4.The applicant has provided a landscaping plan demonstrating how the site will be restored at completion of work. They have not provided information demonstrating how this restoration will provide mitigation for the functions and values of the impacted wetlands. Staff recommends the Board discuss this issue with the applicant. 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards A.Scope and Applicability (1)These regulations shall apply to all land development within the City of South Burlington where one‐half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or parcel. (2)If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from requirements in this Section 12.03. Though the applicant has not submitted documentation of the drainage area contributing to the treatment practice, no additional impervious is proposed, therefore Staff considers the Stormwater Management Standards do not apply. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 1 Dave Wheeler From:Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 10:14 AM To:Dave Wheeler Cc:Schramm, Mike Subject:FW: Kennedy Drive - Wetland Buffer and definition of existing footprint Dave, I heard back from Tina yesterday. Scroll down to see her response in red…it looks like she agrees with my interpretation of buffer impact, which means we are under the 250 sf threshold and modifications are considered an Allowed Use and no wetlands permit is required. Kirstin From: Heath, Tina [mailto:Tina.Heath@vermont.gov] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 12:40 PM To: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive - Wetland Buffer and definition of existing footprint Hi Kirstin, Sorry for not getting back to you right away, I’ve been buried between vacation and the start of the field season. The existing footprint means the manipulated areas that were built for the treatment system- this would be the pond itself, berms, swales, access road, etc. If any filling, grading or clearing is proposed outside of the footprint and over the 250 sf threshold then it would need a permit. So if additional grading needs to be done, new rip rap installed at the ends of pipes, etc.- these types of expansions would cumulatively need to stay under the 250 sf threshold. The Wetland Program has a new GP (3-9026) currently on public notice that is specific to certain water quality improvement projects, such as stormwater retrofitting. We are anticipating many comments that will need to be addressed before the permit is finalized. I would advise that any retrofit projects being currently designed to continue under the current Program permit impact thresholds until the permit is finalized. You can check on the status of the general permit 3-9026 when you are ready to submit a permit application. The non-substantial expansion or modification of an existing structure (AU 6.12) will still be using the threshold of 250 sf to qualify as an allowed use (meaning no permit is required). Best, Tina Tina Heath, District Wetland Ecologist Chittenden County ACT 250 District Commission Application #: Exhibit #: Date Received: # 4, 6, 9 4C1122-1 021 5/16/18 ATTACHMENT A 2 802-490-6202 tina.heath@vermont.gov Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 111 West St Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov See what we’re up to on our Blog, Flow. From: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:18 AM To: Heath, Tina <Tina.Heath@vermont.gov> Subject: Kennedy Drive - Wetland Buffer and definition of existing footprint Tina, We are at the point in the design of Kennedy Drive Pond 3 where I am trying to figure out the quantity (square footage) of impact to the buffer outside of the existing Pond 3 footprint so as to begin the permitting process with your department. I am struggling with the definition of what the existing footprint is for Pond 3. If I interpret it to be the existing STP site which includes the access area around the pond that is used for maintenance that extends to the bottom of berm slope and edge of cleared area and along outfall pipe, then I am below the 250 SF threshold of impact. I have attached a set of drawings that we prepared for the permit. Drawings P-3.1 and P-3.2 show the Pond 3 site plan existing and proposed, and show how I have interpreted the existing Pond 3 footprint within the wetland buffer (Existing and Proposed work at Pond 5 is also included in the set). Can you take a look at it and let me know if this interpretation is acceptable? This is acceptable and can be determined as an Allowed Use. Also, I am confused by the language in the draft wetland rule (highlighted below)…it seems to say that the impact threshold for retrofit of STPs is higher than 250 SF, at 500 SF or 5,000 SF for buffer impacts…Can you clarify what the threshold is and what would be applicable to this project? Draft wetland rule (https://anrweb.vt.gov/Pubdocs/DEC/ENB/ENB_V2/683-Wetlands%20WQI%20GP_v11_FINAL.pdf) b. Retrofit of Stormwater Treatment Practices. The Secretary has determined that the installation of certain Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs) to address existing impervious surface is a critical step in implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in stormwater impaired watersheds, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog. Additionally, existing sites with three or more acres of 4 impervious surface will require installation of STPs in order to meet the requirements of the forthcoming stormwater developed lands general permit, which is critical for meeting the Lake Champlain TMDL. The retrofit of stormwater infrastructure with STPs can result in improved water quality in these watersheds. Unless otherwise specified in this general permit, projects retrofitting existing impervious surfaces with stormwater STPs according to the terms of a validly-issued operational stormwater permit, authorization under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit, or Municipal Roads General Permit, may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed with construction following registration of the project. To be eligible for coverage, projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Installation of STPs, including installation of multiple STPs that are part of a single retrofit project, must impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, no more than 2,000 square feet of managed wetland, and no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, resulting in no more than 5,000 total square feet of impact to any wetland or buffer. ii. Permittees must register the location and type of STPs to be constructed prior to commencing construction. 3 I guess once I have an answer on how much buffer impact there is, you can let me know what kind of permitting is required. If you want to discuss directly in a phone call, I am here until 3 pm today and will be in on Monday as well. After that I will be on vacation for the school spring break. Thank you, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Environmental Engineer Licensed in: VT 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com the presumption of significance and is presumed Class II. Thank you, Kirstin From: Heath, Tina [mailto:Tina.Heath@vermont.gov] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:07 PM To: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study Hi all, Thank you for meeting with me last week on October 17 to review the seven stormwater ponds along Kennedy Drive. And thanks for digging up the wetlands permit for the Kennedy Drive expansion. Unfortunately I can’t find any paper files here at my office and it’s tough to determine what’s what in the CUD/ site plans. Does the City have a copy of the original application? Five existing ponds are proposed for retrofit and expansion upgrades to satisfy the Potash Brook FRP and capture additional off‐site runoff. Below is a jurisdictional summary of each pond we visited. The ponds correspond to the site maps we had at the visit. Pond 1: The proposal is to significantly expand the pond towards the west. There are mapped wetlands nearby associated with Potash Brook, and a wetland swale/finger that extends from this complex towards the road where there’s a culvert. This swale would also be considered Class II because it’s contiguous to the larger complex. The expansion would likely impact wetland and buffer and would be difficult to approve with a permit. Alternative sites and designs will need to looked in to that could avoid wetland and buffer impact. Pond 2: The existing pond is located adjacent to mapped Class II wetlands, and it appears that a berm may separate the two. The proposal is to expand the pond in the opposite direction of the wetlands and retrofit a gravel wetland. Because of how close the pond is to the wetlands it is necessary to determine if this pond was originally constructed in upland or wetland. This will give us a sense of where the actual wetland boundary and 50 foot buffer zone is located for delineation purposes. Depending on the boundary, the expansion would either require a permit or be outside of wetland jurisdiction. And in general, if retrofit upgrades like a gravel wetland can be installed within the existing footprint of the pond infrastructure then these types of projects are considered an allowed use. Pond 3: The existing pond sits on a terrace above the large mapped wetland complex. Upgrade proposals are to expand the existing pond and create a new swale to redirect the culvert outflow to the pond. The wetlands should be delineated to determine how much of the proposal is within the 50‐foot buffer zone. There are no significant concerns with this proposal at this time. Pond 4: Upgrades proposed include the expansion of the pond to the southeast. There is an unnamed stream that flows around the perimeter of the existing pond. There is a wetland associated with the stream and is Class II based on presumptions. Expanding into this wetland and buffer would unlikely be permitted, and alternatives would need to be looked into. Pond 5 and Pond 6: no changes to pond 5, abandoning pond 6. Pond 7: This pond is proposed to be expanded, mapped Class II wetlands are nearby. Wetlands would need to be delineated, current proposal would likely impact buffer. The expansion should be reconfigured to minimize impacts as much as possible. Based on discussions at the site visit there’s possibility the expansion could be reconfigured to avoid the buffer zone. Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Best, Best, Tina Tina Heath, District Wetland Ecologist Chittenden County 802‐490‐6202 tina.heath@vermont.gov Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 111 West St Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov See what we’re up to on our Blog, Flow. From: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. [mailto:kworden@hoyletanner.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:05 PM To: April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com>; Heath, Tina <Tina.Heath@vermont.gov> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study April and Tina, I preparation of next week’s site visits, I wanted to forward updated maps prepared by WCA showing the expansion concepts for each of the Kennedy Drive ponds. The attached maps represent the most recent updates to existing and proposed drainage areas, existing and proposed pond footprints, and proposed drainage connection concepts. Let us know if you have any questions. Also, I plan to attend next Tuesday’s (10/17) site visits to answer any engineering related questions about the proposed concepts. Please let me know where to meet you and if we are still planning on a 10:45 am start. Thanks, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Environmental Engineer Licensed in: VT 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. No X No X X No X Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pound 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope %: 5 VT Sampling Point: Up April Moualert, PWS Section, Township, Range: Hinesburg fine sandy loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15"N Long: 73° 10'14"W Datum: significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Up Tree Stratum 30 ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Quercus rubra 40 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU 3 (A) Acer rubrum 10 No FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Yes FAC FAC species 40 120 0 0 Total % Cover of: 0 Acer rubrum Fraxinus americana 5 No FACU UPL species 0 0 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACU species 130 80 =Total Cover 640 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.76 Tilia americana 5 No FACU 170 (A) 15 )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 0 520 60 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Maianthemum canadense 20 Yes FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.30 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X SOIL Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 4-12 10YR 4/3 Loamy/Clayey Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy100 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Yes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. X No X No X X No x x x x x X x x x Yes X Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Enosburg and Whately soils PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15" N Long: 73° 10' 14"W Datum: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pond 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope %: 0 VT Sampling Point: Wet April Moulaert, PWS Section, Township, Range: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size:X 1.X 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.100 =Total Cover Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Phragmites australis 90 Yes FACW 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Typha angustifolia 10 No =Total Cover 190 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.90 100 (A) )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 90 0 UPL species 0 0 FACU species 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: FAC species 0 0 10 10 Total % Cover of: 180 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Wet Tree Stratum ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X x XYes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-1 10YR 2/1 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L) Mucky Loam/Clay Loc2 Texture Remarks Mucky Loam/Clay SOIL Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 1-12 10YR 4/1 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC125 COLLEGE STREET, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401WATERSHED CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, LLC430 SHELBURNE ROAD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05406VERMONT SURVEY AND ENGINEERING, INC.79 RIVER STREET, SUITE 201, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602APRIL 2018PREPARED BY:125 COLLEGE STREET - 4TH FLOORBURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTKENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER PONDSWETLAND BUFFER IMPACTSDRAFTSUBMITTALREVIEWI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 G-00.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:25 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVEDNOTE:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-1P3-12KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:29 PM, 1:2 DDDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-2P3-23KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:36 PM, 1:2 DKENNEDY DRIVENOTES:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-3P3-34KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 LANDSCAPING PLAN PLANT TABLESYMBOLCOMMON NAMELEGEND:I:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-3.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:43 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVENOTE:8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-1P5-15KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:48 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-2P5-26KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:54 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVE8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-1P6-17KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:01 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-2P6-28KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN LEGEND:SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:07 PM, 1:2 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources Watershed Management Division One National Life Drive, Main Bldg., 2nd Floor [phone] 802-828-1535 Montpelier, VT 05620 [fax] 802-828-1544 To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health, for the benefit of this and future generations. NOTICE OF DRAFT WETLAND GENERAL PERMIT #3-9026 The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources is issuing a draft Wetland General Permit for public comment pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §905b and §9.7 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR). The General Permit is for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted within Class II wetlands and associated buffer zones. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. Project proponents may self-verify coverage and must register the activity with the Vermont Wetlands Program, except for farm practices described in the permit. The specific water quality improvement projects include stream crossing structure replacement, failed wastewater system replacement, retrofits for Stormwater treatment practices, and Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Services Conservation Practice Standards on farms for access roads, heavy use protection areas, stream crossings, trails and walkways, and artificial wetlands. The NRCS Practice Standards can be found at: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VT/TABLE_OF_CONSERVATION_PRACTICES.pdf. The Secretary is issuing a General Permit in order to more effectively and efficiently regulate and protect Vermont’s significant wetlands. The Secretary reserves the right to require an individual permit or different general permit if deemed necessary to protect wetlands. Although individuals may self-verify their project’s eligibility, Wetlands Program Staff are available to consult. This consultation is particularly helpful for determining if the wetland is a bog, fen, or vernal pool which would need to be avoided for permit coverage. This General Permit does not supersede any existing Vermont Wetland Rule exemptions or allowed uses. Below is a list of activities which would not be eligible for this proposed general permit because the activities do not need any permit for the activities: Food and Crop Area Exemption: wetland areas used to grow food or crops in connection with farming activities that have been in ordinary rotation since February 23, 1990 are excluded from regulation under the VWR. From February 23, 1990 to present, all new farming activities within significant wetlands or their buffer zones fall under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This exclusion expires when the area is no longer used to grow food or crops, or is no longer in ordinary rotation. When the exclusion expires, the area may then be considered a Class II wetland, and therefore will then also be subject to the 50 foot buffer zone again. For example, this exemption expires whenever a pasture or hayfield wetland will be turned into a walkway or access road because the structure is not growing food or crop. Allowed Use §6.12 The maintenance, reconstruction, or routine repair of structures and facilities (including ski trails, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings) in compliance with the Vermont Wetland Rules in existence as of the date of their construction or in existence as of February 23, 1990 or additions to such structures or facilities which do not involve substantial expansion or modification in a wetland or buffer. Allowed Use §6.13 Emergency repair, cleanup, or maintenance of structures and facilities (including utility poles and lines, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings), or emergency actions required to provide for public health, safety and welfare for disaster relief in connection with a federal or state-designated disaster. Complete copies of the draft permit can be obtained by writing to the address below, or by clicking on the following link: https://enb.vermont.gov/ Any person may file comments in writing on the draft Wetland General Permit through May 9, 2018 with: 1 STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WETLANDS GENERAL PERMIT 3-9026 Water Quality Improvement Projects in Significant Wetlands and Buffers I. Purpose The Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Secretary) hereby issues this general permit pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 905b and §§ 9.8 and 9.9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR) (effective April 1, 2017), for the purpose of expediting the permitting process for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted in significant wetlands and their buffer zones. II. Findings Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 913 and Section 9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR), any activity in a Class II wetland or its associated buffer zone is prohibited unless it is an allowed use, or it is authorized by a permit, conditional use determination, or order issued by the Secretary. Pursuant to Section 9.8 of the VWR, the Secretary may issue general permits authorizing discrete categories of activities or uses in discrete categories of Class II wetlands. The Secretary may, at his or her discretion, issue a nonreporting general permit (VWR § 9.9(g)). Activities and uses eligible for authorization under a general permit must be found to comply with the VWR and have no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the impacted wetland. This finding must be based on an evaluation of both the direct and immediate effects of the proposed activity on the wetland, as well as the cumulative or ongoing effects of the activity on the wetland. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. If eligible projects are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, there will be minimal or no alteration of the physical and vegetative wetland characteristics that provide the following functions: water storage for flood water and storm runoff (VWR §5.1), surface and groundwater protection (§5.2), fisheries habitat (§5.3), wildlife and migratory bird habitat (§5.4), and erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil (§5.10). Potential impacts to exemplary wetland natural communities (§5.5), and threatened and endangered species habitat (§5.6), are limited through the Limitations on Coverage in Part V of this general permit. Given the limited nature of the activities eligible for coverage under this general permit, no potential impacts are predicted for education and research in natural science (§5.7), recreational value and economic benefits (§5.8), and open space and aesthetics (§5.9). Based on the factors described above, if an eligible project is conducted in accordance with the terms and 2 conditions of this general permit, The Secretary has determined that the activity will comply with the Vermont Wetland Rules and will not result in undue adverse impacts to wetland functions and values. In determining whether coverage under this general permit should be granted, the Secretary has evaluated the potential effect of the eligible activities on the basis of both their direct and immediate effects as well as on the basis of any cumulative or on-going effects. III. Definitions a. Managed Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that have been managed and maintained, including mowed lawns, mowed road shoulders, parking areas, roads, hayfields, managed pasture, and croplands. This category does not include managed forest or land that has been allowed to lay fallow for three or more years. The clearing of woody vegetation from a natural wetland to create a managed wetland requires a wetlands permit. b. Natural Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that are naturally vegetated and that have not been managed or have been minimally managed. This category includes forested swamps, shrub swamps, marshes, thickets, and areas managed for silviculture. c. Practice means any activity eligible for coverage under this general permit. d. Project means a plan proposed by a person that includes the construction of one or more practices eligible for coverage under this general permit. A project shall specify the location and design of the practices that will be constructed, as well as the timeframe within which construction shall take place. For STP projects described in subpart (b) below, the retrofits for a parcel or specified development are considered a single project. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this permit. A person shall not intentionally subdivide the components of a project in order to qualify for coverage under this general permit. IV. Activities Eligible for Coverage Under this General Permit Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit include certain water quality improvement projects on farms, certain retrofit stormwater treatment projects, and replacement of stream crossing structures and failed wastewater treatment systems. To be eligible for coverage under this general permit, an activity must meet the conditions and criteria listed in subparts a), b), c), or d) of this part, as well as the General Conditions listed in Part VI. Permitting thresholds for activities are based on whether the proposed activity takes place in a “managed” or “natural” wetland. a. Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms. The Secretary has determined that certain water quality improvement practices, when conducted according to the standards listed below, result in reduced impact to significant wetlands, and a net reduction in pollutant loading to waters of the state. When conducted on land that is actively used for farming activities as defined in Section 3 3.1(a) of the Vermont Wetland Rules, the activities listed below may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed without notification to the Secretary. To be eligible for non-reporting coverage, project activities must comply with the impact thresholds identified below, and must be conducted in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standards for Vermont, specified below. The activities eligible for non-reporting coverage are as follows: i. Construction of Stream Crossings and Trails and Walkways: 1. Construction of Stream Crossings, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #578. Individual stream crossings shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Construction of Trails and Walkways, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #575. Individual trails and walkways shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. ii. Other Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms: Construction of the following practices shall be subject to the impact thresholds identified below. Construction of more than one the following practices shall cumulatively result in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to any wetland or buffer, as specified below: 1. Construction of access roads, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #560, impacts no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Designation and Construction of a Heavy Use Protection Area, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #561, impacting no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetland. 3. Construction of artificial wetlands, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #656, provided that the constructed wetland is built in a managed buffer, and does not impact more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetlands. b. Retrofit of Stormwater Treatment Practices. The Secretary has determined that the installation of certain Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs) to address existing impervious surface is a critical step in implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in stormwater impaired watersheds, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog. Additionally, existing sites with three or more acres of 4 impervious surface will require installation of STPs in order to meet the requirements of the forthcoming stormwater developed lands general permit, which is critical for meeting the Lake Champlain TMDL. The retrofit of stormwater infrastructure with STPs can result in improved water quality in these watersheds. Unless otherwise specified in this general permit, projects retrofitting existing impervious surfaces with stormwater STPs according to the terms of a validly-issued operational stormwater permit, authorization under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit, or Municipal Roads General Permit, may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed with construction following registration of the project. To be eligible for coverage, projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Installation of STPs, including installation of multiple STPs that are part of a single retrofit project, must impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, no more than 2,000 square feet of managed wetland, and no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, resulting in no more than 5,000 total square feet of impact to any wetland or buffer. ii. Permittees must register the location and type of STPs to be constructed prior to commencing construction. c. Stream crossing structure replacement for Public Safety, Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), or for Flood Resiliency Improvements. The Secretary has determined that certain impacts associated with stream crossing structure replacements that do not qualify as allowed uses under VWR § 6.12 are necessary to improve public safety, aquatic organism passage design, and improvements to stream flow and flood capacity. The allowed use in Section 6.12 of the VWR allows for the maintenance, reconstruction or routine repair of structures and facilities, if there is not substantial expansion beyond the existing footprint of the structure or additional impacts are not required to access the structure. But expansion of a crossing structure is often necessary to improve AOP and flood resiliency. Furthermore, temporary access to make improvements or to allow for continued public use of the road is often necessary to implement the replacement. In order to be eligible for coverage under this general permit for activities outside of the footprint of an existing structure, replacements must obtain authorization from one of the following under the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stream Alteration General Permit: E. General Permit Coverage for Emergency Protective Measures, or F. General Permit Coverage of Next-Flood Protective Measures. To be eligible for coverage impact totals from the complete project shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. Projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Expansion of the existing structure (expansion of culvert length, installation of wing walls, replacement with wider structure etc.) shall not result in more than 1,000 square feet of impact in wetland or buffer zone. ii. Temporary reroutes to allow for public travel and temporary access for construction purposes shall not result in more than 5,000 square feet of impact to wetland and buffer zone. All impacted area shall be promptly 5 restored (return grade, seed, and mulch) upon the completion of the project, and shall be in place no longer than 12 months. Where temporary reroutes are necessary over forested wetland and buffer, stumps shall remain in place. d. Replacement of Failed Wastewater Systems in Managed Buffer Zones. The Secretary has determined that the prompt replacement of failed wastewater systems is necessary to abate health and environmental hazards associated with the discharge of contaminated water and sewage. To be eligible for coverage under this permit, there must be an immediate and ongoing health or environmental hazard associated with the failed system, the building structure serviced by the failed system in question must be occupied, and the system must still be in use at the time of failure. Projects must also meet the following criteria, and impacts from the new system installation shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of impact to managed buffer zone (eg lawn or other maintained buffer): i. There is no alternative location outside the wetland buffer that is reasonably available to the landowner that is adequately suited for wastewater disposal, including existing easements on adjoining property; ii. The new system will comply with the Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules including the variance section for “best fix.” V. Obtaining Authorization a. Non-reporting Coverage: Individuals conducting water quality improvement projects on farms, pursuant to Part III(a) of this general permit, may proceed without application or notification to the Agency, provided that the project will meet the terms and conditions of this general permit. b. Registration of Project: For all other eligible projects, pursuant to Part III(b), (c), and (d) of this general permit, may proceed without application for coverage, but must register the project on the Agency’s website prior to beginning construction. Registration must include the title of the entity conducting the activity, the location of the activity, and a description of the activity. VI. Limitations on coverage The following activities are not eligible for coverage under this general permit: a. Activities that are allowed uses under §6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. b. Activities within 50 feet of wetland areas used to grow food or crops that fall under the Farming Exemption in Section 3.1 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. Activities in these areas do not require permit coverage. c. Activities within a Class I wetland or buffer zone. d. Water quality improvement projects impacting more than the allowable square footage for each wetland and buffer type, and eligible activity. 6 e. Water quality improvement projects identified in Part III(2)(a) on land that is not actively used for farming activities. A property is considered to be actively used for farming when farming activities are continuously conducted on the property. f. Activities affecting wetlands significant for the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE) Species Habitat function pursuant to §5.6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory. g. Activities located in or adjacent to (within 50 feet of) bogs, fens, or vernal pools. Bogs, fens, and vernal pools are identified on the ANR Atlas, which is found at: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/WetlandProjects/default.html. The Wetlands Program may be contacted to verify if a wetland is one of these types of wetlands. h. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands that are significant for the Exemplary Wetland Natural Community function pursuant to §5.5 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory Program. i. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands at or above 2,500 feet in elevation (headwaters wetlands). j. Unpermitted as-built projects that required a permit and did not obtain one in violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules. k. With the exception of stream crossings and trails and walkways as defined in Part IV(a)(i) of this general permit, activities that are components of a single project or planned phases of a multiphase project, where the entire project exceeds the eligibility thresholds in Part IV of this general permit, are not eligible for coverage. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this general permit. VII. Relation to Other Permits Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit may also require a permit pursuant to other local, state, and federal laws, including a federal wetlands permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Applicants are responsible for determining if any such permits apply to their proposed activities and obtaining any such permits. VIII. Required Best Management Practices a. Best Management Practices Applicable to All Eligible Projects: i. Steps shall be taken to prevent the transport of sediment into any wetland or other surface water and to promote re-vegetation following the completion of work: 1. If a construction stormwater permit is required (i.e. over an acre of soil disturbance), the permittee shall follow the terms and conditions of that permit. Otherwise, the permittee shall utilize recommended sediment and erosion controls as needed and as described in the Vermont Department of Environmental 7 Conservation's Low Risk Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control, or other equivalent controls as approved by the Agency. 2. All sediment controls and construction fencing shall be installed prior to beginning any earthwork for the project and removed following the successful establishment of vegetation. 3. Disturbed soils shall be seeded and mulched within 48 hours of final grading. Appropriate wetland seed mixes shall be used within wetlands. Appropriate erosion control/conservation seed mixes shall be used within buffers. All areas shall be stabilized within wetlands and buffer zones and mulched with straw or weed-free hay to limit the spread of invasive species. ii. If the impact is temporary in nature, stockpiling of material shall be done on filter fabric or equivalent in the wetland and buffer zone. Temporarily removed wetland soils shall be put back in place in the reverse order that they were removed and restored to their prior condition to match the original soil profile. iii. Removed and stockpiled materials shall be located outside of wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters, and appropriate erosion controls measures as described above shall be used. iv. Impacts from equipment access to the project site shall be limited by utilizing existing or low impact routes using the following sequence of options listed in order of preference: 1. Access should be limited to upland areas or existing maintained roads to the extent practicable; 2. Access on other existing primitive roads or existing managed areas (as defined in Section III(1)a) in wetlands or buffer zones; 3. Where existing roads are not an option for access, minimize rutting and earth disturbing activities by: 4. Accessing wetland areas with mats or under frozen or dry conditions. Winter construction under frozen conditions may minimize ground disturbance and reduce impacts to wildlife; 5. Delineating the limits of disturbance using a combination of silt fence, flagging, and/or snow fence; 6. Using low-ground pressure or track vehicles in wetlands to minimize compaction and rutting; 7. Minimizing equipment use in wetlands and limiting vehicle trips; and 8. Restoring the project site in order to reverse soil compaction and stabilize the soil on the site, and replanting the site if vegetation has been destroyed. v. Waste disposal and equipment refueling shall be limited to areas outside wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters. vi. Final earthwork shall return wetlands and buffer zones to the original grade. 8 vii. The potential for the introduction and spread of invasive species in wetlands and buffer zones shall be decreased by using the following methods: 1. All equipment shall be cleaned so as to contain no observable soil or vegetation prior to work in wetlands and buffer zones to prevent the spread of invasive species; 2. If removed material contains invasive species, care should be taken to dispose of the material in a manner that does not spread the invasive species to new areas b. Activity-Specific Best Management Practices: i. Installation of underground facilities in wetlands or buffer zones: 1. Trenches shall be filled, mulched, and seeded immediately or upon final inspection of the line; 2. If a directional bore is required, the depth of the bore beneath the wetland shall not puncture a confining layer essential to maintain wetland hydrology; 3. If drilling or boring is required, drilling fluid shall be composed of bentonite clay, clean water, and Agency approved additives (e.g., "environmentally safe" drill soap or polymers). ii. Activities in surface water body margins: 1. Soil and vegetation disturbance shall be minimized to avoid unnecessary impacts to waterbodies: a. Avoid removing vegetation until just before beginning construction that disturbs the soil; b. Minimize the area of bare soil within the approved work zone as much as possible; c. Maintain as much of a naturally vegetated buffer as possible around wetlands and surface waters to slow runoff and trap sediments; d. Phase construction to minimize the extent of soils disturbed simultaneously; and e. Dredged material shall be properly disposed of and dewatering of dredged material must take place such that a turbid discharge to waters of the State does not occur; IX. General Conditions a. All activities shall be completed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this general permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 37 and may be cause for an enforcement action or revocation and reissuance, modification, or termination of the permittee's authorization under this general permit. b. For projects requiring registration, the permittee shall register their project with the Vermont Wetlands Program prior to the start of construction. 9 c. Activities must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, both temporary and permanent, to wetlands, buffers and wetland functions and values to the maximum extent practicable at the project site. Consideration of mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, or restoring) is required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to protected wetland function and value are no more than minimal. For NRCS practices, consideration of avoidance and minimization of impacts must be consistent with the Wetland Protection Policy required for all NRCS technical assistance and funding. d. Permittees must comply with the required best management practices listed in Section VII of this general permit. e. This permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to comply with any other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. f. The Agency maintains continuing jurisdiction over a project authorized under this general permit and may at any time order remedial measures if it appears likely that undue adverse impacts to protected wetland functions and values are or will occur. X. Appeals Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Division; and must be signed by the appellant or the appellant’s attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project, or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Division is: 32 Cherry St.; 2nd Floor, Suite 303; Burlington, VT 05401 (Tel. # 802-828-1660). XI. Effective Date and Permit Term This permit shall become effective upon signing and shall expire five years from the date of signing. State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Emily Boedecker, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: 10 Pete LaFlamme, Director Watershed Management Division ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 On May 18, 2018, City of South Burlington, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 filed application #4C1122-1 for a project generally described as retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. The District #4 Environmental Commission is reviewing this application under Act 250 Rule 51 -- Minor Applications. A copy of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the office listed below. The application and a draft permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (http://nrb.vermont.gov) by clicking on "Act 250 Database" and entering the project number “4C1122-1”. No hearing will be held and a permit may be issued unless, on or before June 15, 2018, a person notifies the Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the Commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request must be in writing to the address below, must state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. If you feel that any of the District Commission members listed on the attached Certificate of Service under “For Your Information” may have a conflict of interest, or if there is any other reason a member should be disqualified from sitting on this case, please contact the district coordinator as soon as possible, no later than prior to the response date listed above. The Applicant has requested a partial waiver of notice to adjoining landowners, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 10(F). The District Commission has granted the waiver request based on the determination that the adjoining landowners whose notice has been waived, reasonably could not be affected by the proposed project and that serving notice on all the adjoining landowners constitutes a significant administrative burden without corresponding public benefit. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by June 15, 2018. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, affected state agencies, and adjoining property owners and other persons to the extent they have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the 10 criteria. Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. Section 6085(c)(5). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 22nd day of May, 2018. By: /s/Stephanie H. Monaghan Stephanie H. Monaghan District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 802/879-5662 stephanie.monaghan@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.minor.notice.docx State of Vermont __________________________________________________________ LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT This is a PROPOSED permit; please submit any written comments to Stephanie H. Monaghan, 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 by June 15, 2018. A permit will NOT be issued until the District Commission receives and reviews the following information: 1. Construction General Permit issued by the ANR-DEC Watershed Management Division. CASE NO: 4C1122-1 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED City of South Burlington 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 (Act 250) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit Amendment #4C1122-1, pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6093. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Book 78, Page 164; and Book 681, Pages 394-453 of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of deeds to City of South Burlington; and Book 175, Pages 428-429, of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to Windridge Homeowners Association. This permit specifically authorizes the retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. Jurisdiction attaches because the Project constitutes a material change to a permitted development or subdivision, and thus requires a permit amendment pursuant to Act 250 Rule 34. 1. The Permittee, and its assigns and successors in interest, is obligated by this permit to complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions. 2. The project shall be completed, operated and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this permit and the permit application, plans, and exhibits on file with the District Environmental Commission and other material representations. The approved plans are: Sheet G-0.1 - “General Notes, Legend and Drawing Index,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet G-0.2 - “General Notes,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Page 2 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 Sheet C-1.3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.5 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.6 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.7 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.8 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-2.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-3.3 - “Erosion Control Details,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-A,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-B,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); and “Total Area Plan ROW-C,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ). 3. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4C1122 and amendments are in full force and effect except as further amended herein. 4. The Permittee shall comply with all of the conditions of the following Agency of Natural Resources Permit: a. Authorization of Notice of Intent # under Construction General Permit #3-9020 issued on (date) by the ANR Watershed Management Division 5. Any nonmaterial changes to the permit listed in the preceding condition shall be automatically incorporated herein upon issuance by the Agency of Natural Resources. Page 3 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 6. Representatives of the State of Vermont shall have access to the property covered by this permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this permit. 7. A copy of this permit and plans shall be on the site at all times throughout the construction process. 8. No change shall be made to the design, operation or use of this project without a permit amendment issued by the District Commission or a jurisdictional opinion from the District Coordinator that a permit is not required. 9. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8005(c), the District Commission may at any time require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the project is in compliance with the terms of this permit. 10. The conditions of this permit and the land uses permitted herein shall run with the land and are binding upon and enforceable against the Permittee and their successors and assigns. 11. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00AM to 5:00PM. 12. The Permittee shall apply and maintain water and/or other agents approved by the Watershed Management Division in the Project’s Erosion Prevention and Control Plan on all roadways or disturbed areas within the project during construction and until pavement and/or vegetation is fully established to control dust. 13. At a minimum, the Permittee shall comply with the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 14. The Permittee shall comply with Exhibits #001 and __ (Schedule B; and Erosion Control Details) for erosion prevention and sediment control. The Permittee shall prevent the transport of any sediment beyond that area necessary for construction approved herein. All erosion prevention and sediment control devices shall be periodically cleaned, replaced and maintained until vegetation is permanently established on all slopes and disturbed areas. 15. All mulch, siltation dams, water bars and other temporary devices shall be installed immediately upon grading and shall be maintained until all roads are permanently surfaced and all permanent vegetation is established on all slopes and disturbed areas. Topsoil stockpiles shall have the exposed earth completely mulched and have siltation checks around the base. 16. All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilization within 14 days of the initial disturbance. After this time, any disturbance in the area must be stabilized at the end of each work day. The following exceptions apply: i) Stabilization is not required if work is to continue in the area within the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours. ii) Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet or greater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches). 17. All disturbed areas of the site shall be stabilized, seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of final grading. All disturbed areas not involved in winter construction shall Page 4 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 be mulched and seeded before October 1. Between the periods of October 1 to April 15, all earth disturbing work shall conform with the “Requirements for Winter Construction” standards and specifications of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 18. In addition to conformance with all erosion prevention and sediment control conditions, the Permittee shall not cause, permit or allow the discharge of waste material into any surface waters. Compliance with the requirements of this condition does not absolve the Permittee from compliance with 10 V.S.A. (§§ 1250-1284) Chapter 47, Vermont's Water Pollution Control Law. 19. Any extracted stumps shall be disposed of on-site above the seasonal high water table and not in any wetland, or at a State approved landfill, so as to prevent groundwater pollution. 20. The Permittee and all assigns and successors in interest shall continually maintain the landscaping as approved in Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan) by replacing any dead or diseased plantings within the season or as soon as possible after the ground thaws, whichever is sooner. 21. Prior to any site work, the Permittee shall install and maintain temporary fencing along the tree line and around trees to be retained as depicted on Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan). 22. No exterior lighting or signage is proposed in conjunction with the Project. 23. The Permittee shall provide each prospective purchaser of any interest in this Project a copy of the Land Use Permit Amendment before any written contract of sale is entered into. 24. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1) this permit amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term, as long as there is compliance with the conditions herein. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, this permit shall expire three years from the date of issuance if the Permittee has not commenced construction and made substantial progress toward completion within the three year period in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 6091(b). 25. All site work and construction shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans by October 1, 2021, unless an extension of this date is approved in writing by the Commission. Such requests to extend must be filed prior to the deadline and approval may be granted without public hearing. 26. The Permittee shall file a Certificate of Actual Construction Costs, on forms available from the Natural Resources Board, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6083a(g) within one month after construction has been substantially completed or two years from the date of this permit, whichever shall occur first. Application for extension of time for good cause shown may be made to the District Commission. If actual construction costs exceed the original estimate, a supplemental fee based on actual construction costs must be paid at the time of certification in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of application. Upon request, the Permittee shall provide all documents or other information Page 5 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 necessary to substantiate the certification. Pursuant to existing law, failure to file the certification or pay any supplemental fee due constitutes grounds for permit revocation. The certificate of actual construction costs and any supplemental fee (by check payable to the "State of Vermont") shall be mailed to: Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201; Attention: Certification. 27. Failure to comply with any condition herein may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A. sec. 6027(g). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this day of June, 2018. By__________________________ Thomas A. Little, Chair District #4 Commission Members participating in this decision: Parker Riehle Monique Gilbert Any party may file a motion to alter with the District Commission within 15 days from the date of this decision, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 31(A). Any appeal of this decision must be filed with the Superior Court, Environmental Division within 30 days of the date the decision was issued, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220. The Notice of Appeal must comply with the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (VRECP). The appellant must file with the Notice of Appeal the $265 entry fee required by 32 V.S.A. § 1431. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201, and on other parties in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. Decisions on minor applications may be appealed only if a hearing was held by the district commission. Please note that there are certain limitations on the right to appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(k). For additional information on filing appeals, see the Court’s website at: http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx or call (802) 828-1660. The Court’s mailing address is: Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401. Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.draft.permit.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 22nd day of May 2018, a copy of the foregoing ACT 250 NOTICE OF MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals without email addresses and by email to the individuals with email addresses listed. Note: any recipient may change its preferred method of receiving notices and other documents by contacting the District Office staff at the mailing address or email below. If you have elected to receive notices and other documents by email, it is your responsibility to notify our office of any email address changes. All email replies should be sent to nrb-act250essex@vermont.gov. City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 stormwater@sburl.com Thomas DiPietro, Deputy DPW Director/SW Superintendent 104 Landfill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 tdipietro@sburl.com kworden@hoyletanner.com Donna Kinville, City Clerk Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 dkinville@sburl.com Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT 05404 rmahony@ccrpcvt.org Elizabeth Lord, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05602-3901 anr.act250@vermont.gov FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission Thomas Little, Chair Parker Riehle/Monique Gilbert 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Barry Murphy/Vt. Dept. of Public Service 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 barry.murphy@vermont.gov Craig Keller/John Gruchacz/Jeff Ramsey/C. Clow VTrans Policy, Planning & Research Bureau One National Life Drive, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633 craig.keller@vermont.gov; john.gruchacz@vermont.gov jeff.ramsey@vermont.gov; christopher.clow@vermont.gov Vt. Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets 116 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 AGR.Act250@vermont.gov Division for Historic Preservation National Life Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 scott.dillon@vermont.gov james.duggan@vermont.gov NRCS, District Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service 68 Catamount Park, Ste. B Middlebury, VT 05753 marybeth.whitten@vt.usda.gov Winooski NRCD Office 617 Comstock Road, Suite 1 Berlin, VT 05602 whiterivernrcd@gmail.com Ethan Tapper, County Forester/FPR John Gobeille, ANR/Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 ethan.tapper@vermont.gov john.gobeille@vermont.gov Seven Days/Classified Ad Section 255 South Champlain Street, PO Box 1164 Burlington, VT 05402 classifieds@sevendaysvt.com Green Mountain Power Corporation c/o Kim Jones 163 Acorn Lane Colchester, VT 05446 kim.jones@greenmountainpower.com Kate Talbot/Vermont Gas Systems PO Box 467 Burlington, VT 05402 ktalbot@vermontgas.com Efficiency Vermont 128 Lakeside Ave., Suite 401 Burlington, VT 05401 pics@veic.org Michael Barsotti, Water Quality Director Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 mike.barsotti@champlainwater.org ADJOINING LANDOWNERS Available via: https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/vtANR/Act250SearchResults.aspx?Num=4 C1122-1 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 22nd day of May, 2018. Natural Resources Board Technician 879-5614 christine.commo@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1 cos.docx 1 Dave Wheeler From:Pfeiffer, Rebecca <Rebecca.Pfeiffer@vermont.gov> Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 1:37 PM To:Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A.; Dave Wheeler Cc:Alexander, Gretchen; ANR - Act 250 Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project - Curtesy Review Hello Kirstin & Dave, This email is a follow-up to our site visit on Wednesday, April 18th. We met to look at any potential floodplain or river corridor impacts from the conversion/improvements to the existing Kennedy Drive stormwater ponds 2 & 3. As Kirstin had stated below, these improvements would be reviewed under Act 250, and our office would be reviewing impacts to floodplains or river corridors under Criterion 1D – Floodways. Under Criterion 1D, the Agency of Natural Resources defines the floodway (called the ANR floodway) using the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) to assess inundation floodplain areas and at the ANR River Corridor maps to assess impacts that may exacerbate riverine erosion hazards. In my 4/4 email below, I have a screenshot from the ANR Atlas that shows the FEMA-mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in gold and the ANR-mapped River Corridor shown in light yellow in the area around ponds 2 & 3. Inundation Flood Hazards: For both Ponds 2 & 3, the FEMA mapped floodplain is shown to be adjacent to the area of the ponds, especially for pond 2. On our 4/18 site visit, we met to see if the project would result in any filling or other impacts to the FEMA-mapped SFHA. Pond 3 is shown to be a bit further from the edge of the floodplain on the maps, and when we went on site, it was clearly located above the surrounding lower area that is mapped as floodplain. Therefore, Pond 3 is non-jurisdictional based on the work that is being proposed at this time. For pond 2, the 50% plan set that you had sent for my review shows the edge of the FEMA SFHA cutting into the western side of the existing pond. As we discussed on site, the proposal is to raise the existing berm on the western side by ~3’ and convert the pond into a gravel wetland. The proposal also includes a cut of material on the upslope side on the SE part of the pond in order to expand the pond’s capacity. From our discussion it appears that pond 2 would be considered to be located in the “ANR floodway” for the purposes of Act 250. When we review proposals located in the ANR floodway, our Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure spells out the standards that we use to make recommendations to the District Commission for 1D considerations. When looking at inundation floodplain impacts, our policy is to maintain flood storage, i.e. for any fill or flood storage is lost due to a proposal, then that flood storage is regained on the site. For pond 2, we do not have any concerns based on the plans as reviewed and as we discussed on site 4/18/18. Although the berm on the western edge of the pond will be raised by ~ 3’, some new flood storage will be created within the pond. Additionally, the large Potash Brook wetland floodplain complex already provides an abundant amount of flood water storage, so the small volume of fill being added at the edge of this large floodplain would not appear to have an adverse impact on flood water storage. River Corridor/Erosion Hazards: In an earlier email exchange, we had determined that there were no river corridor impacts from the stormwater pond conversions. I’ve included a screen shot of the updated river corridor for the area around Pond 2 & 3. The river corridor for the site is actually a bit more narrow than what is shown on the ANR Atlas, since there has been a field assessment for the Potash Brook in this location. The field data helped Gretchen to refine the corridor, and that new corridor based on field data is shown below. The orange-lined corridor is what is found on the ANR Atlas, while the red-lined corridor is the updated corridor based on field data. Therefore, the project does not appear to have any impacts that may affect riverine erosion hazards. ACT 250 District Commission Application #: Exhibit #: Date Received: # 4, 6, 9 4C1122-1 020 5/16/18 ATTACHMENT B Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - Other flows above WQv Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - WQv 1S DA (with expansion) 14S DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) 22S Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) 24S Expanded Portion of DA Only 3P Existing Pond as Constructed 17P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 18P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-1821P Node is just for combining flows - no storage Routing Diagram for Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 12/18/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 3.469 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 1.174 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.279 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 22S, 24S) 8.581 97 Modified CN (14S) 7.743 98 Paved parking, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 3.558 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.940 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 22S) 25.744 88 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 11.212 HSG A 1S, 22S, 24S 4.732 HSG B 1S, 24S 1.219 HSG C 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 HSG D 8.581 Other 14S 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 3.469 1.174 0.279 0.000 0.000 4.922 >75% Grass cover, Good 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.581 8.581 Modified CN 14S 7.743 3.558 0.940 0.000 0.000 12.241 Paved parking 1S, 22S, 24S 11.212 4.732 1.219 0.000 8.581 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 3P 270.32 269.00 150.0 0.0088 0.010 15.0 0.0 0.0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-275.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 27501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=8.581 ac 71.32% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.26"Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=2.87 cfs 0.902 af Runoff Area=8.581 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.65"Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 Runoff=5.78 cfs 1.181 af Runoff Area=4.268 ac 78.77% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.39"Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=1.64 cfs 0.494 af Runoff Area=4.314 ac 63.95% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.13"Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ Runoff=3.07 cfs 0.408 af Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af Inflow=1.64 cfs 0.494 afPond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Primary=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf Inflow=2.87 cfs 0.902 afPond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf Inflow=5.78 cfs 1.181 afPond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Inflow=3.13 cfs 0.902 afPond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Primary=3.13 cfs 0.902 af Total Runoff Area = 25.744 ac Runoff Volume = 2.986 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.39" 52.45% Pervious = 13.503 ac 47.55% Impervious = 12.241 ac NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 1.735 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.139 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.871 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8.581 Weighted Average 2.461 28.68% Pervious Area 6.120 71.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 154.2 1,605 0.0007 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=0.902 af Runoff Depth=1.26" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ 2.87 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description * 8.581 97 Modified CN 8.581 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 85.3 1,605 0.0007 0.31 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=1.181 af Runoff Depth=1.65" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 5.78 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.099 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2.892 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.268 Weighted Average 0.906 21.23% Pervious Area 3.362 78.77% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 146.2 1,496 0.0006 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 112' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.268 ac Runoff Volume=0.494 af Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ 1.64 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff = 3.07 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.927 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.980 98 Paved parking, HSG A 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.041 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 4.314 Weighted Average 1.555 36.05% Pervious Area 2.759 63.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 39.9 636 0.0031 0.27 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 579' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.314 ac Runoff Volume=0.408 af Runoff Depth=1.13" Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ 3.07 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Area = 4.268 ac, 78.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Outflow = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Atten= 20%, Lag= 47.0 min Primary = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 270.57' Surf.Area= 0.038 ac Storage= 0.009 af Peak Elev= 274.07' @ 14.60 hrs Surf.Area= 0.084 ac Storage= 0.232 af (0.223 af above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 686.5 min calculated for 0.486 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 657.2 min ( 1,553.5 - 896.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 270.34' 0.504 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 270.34 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.036 270.67 0.039 0.012 0.012 0.039 270.99 0.043 0.013 0.025 0.043 271.32 0.046 0.015 0.040 0.047 271.65 0.050 0.016 0.056 0.051 271.98 0.054 0.017 0.073 0.055 272.31 0.059 0.019 0.092 0.060 272.63 0.064 0.020 0.111 0.065 272.96 0.068 0.022 0.133 0.070 273.29 0.075 0.024 0.157 0.077 276.90 0.119 0.347 0.504 0.125 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.32'15.0" Round Culvert L= 150.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 270.32' / 269.00' S= 0.0088 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 270.57'1.5" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 273.90'64.0" W x 3.5" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 1 274.90'26.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #5 Secondary 274.90'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 2.00 Width (feet) 4.00 20.00 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=1.30 cfs @ 14.60 hrs HW=274.07' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.30 cfs of 8.25 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 8.93 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.19 cfs @ 1.32 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=270.57' (Free Discharge) 5=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=4.268 ac Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af 1.64 cfs 1.31 cfs 1.31 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Outflow = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af, Atten= 45%, Lag= 87.3 min Primary = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.73' @ 15.33 hrs Surf.Area= 11,784 sf Storage= 23,178 cf (22,268 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,488.8 min calculated for 0.893 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,433.5 min ( 2,338.2 - 904.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.56 cfs @ 15.33 hrs HW=275.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.84 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.44 cfs @ 1.18 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf 2.87 cfs 1.58 cfs 1.58 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.65" for 1-Year event Inflow = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af Outflow = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af, Atten= 24%, Lag= 31.2 min Primary = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.87' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 11,931 sf Storage= 24,323 cf (23,414 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,142.0 min calculated for 1.172 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,107.0 min ( 1,956.3 - 849.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=4.35 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=275.87' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.99 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 4.23 cfs @ 1.69 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf 5.78 cfs 4.37 cfs 4.37 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 8.582 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Primary = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.582 ac 3.13 cfs 3.13 cfs Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 201.11 Clearing and Grubbing, Including Individual Trees and Stumps 0.22 ACRE $60,000 $13,200 203.15 Common Excavation 1,300 CY $30 $39,000 203.20 Muck Excavation 530 CY $30 $16,000 203.30 Earth Borrow Fill (allowance)360 CY $30 $10,800 204.20 Trench Excavation of Earth 320 CY $30 $9,600 301.15 Subbase of Gravel (pipe bedding)50 CY $35 $1,800 301.25 Subbase of Crushed Gravel, Coarse Graded (drive) 70 CY $45 $3,200 541.25 Class B Concrete (for concrete footers) 1.3 CY $500 $700 613.10 Stone Fill, Type I (Hydraulic Inlet and Collars) 5 CY $50 $300 622.10 Insulation Board 0.98 MFBM $1,200 $1,200 649.31 Geotextile Under Stone Fill, Type II 160 SY $4 $700 649.41 Geotextile Under Underdrain (under gravel layer) 560 SY $4 $2,300 649.515 Geotextile for Silt Fence, Woven Wire Reinforced 170 SY $10 $1,700 651.15 Seed (Outside Wetland)22 LB $50 $1,100 651.29 Straw mulch 0.9 TON $500 $500 651.35 Topsoil (4" topsoil on side slopes and outside wetland) 252 CY $40 $10,100 652.10 Erosion Protection & Sediment Control Plan 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 652.30 Maintenance of EPSC Plan (N.A.B.I.) 1 LU $2,000 $2,000 653.20 Temporary Erosion Matting 650 SY $2 $1,300 653.35 Vehicle Tracking Pad 60 CY $50 $3,000 653.42 Filter Bag 2 EACH $500 $1,000 653.50 Barrier Fence - temporary construction 100 LF $25 $2,500 656.20 Evergreen Trees (White Pine, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 9 EACH $175 $1,600 656.20 Evergreen Trees (Canandian, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 10 EACH $175 $1,800 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Silver Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 2 EACH $250 $500 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Red Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 5 EACH $250 $1,300 656.35 Deciduous Shrubs (Redosier Dogwood) 100 EACH $75 $7,500 656.80 Lanscaping Backfill, Truck Measurement 70 CY $60 $4,200 900.608 Wetland Soil 4 140 CY $50 $7,000 900.608 3/4" gravel (26" thick in cell 1, 24" thick in cell 2) 280 CY $35 $9,800 900.608 Pea Stone - Choker Layer - 3/8" stone (3") 40 CY $50 $2,000 900.61 9" Stone Fill, (swale and spillways)90 CY $65 $5,900 900.620 24" HDPE Risers 4 EACH $2,500 $10,000 900.620 Flared End Section 2 EACH $300 $600 900.620 Seepage Collars 7 EACH $300 $2,100 900.620 Catch Basin - 4' Diameter 2 EACH $5,000 $10,000 900.620 Beehive Grate 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.620 Removable Trash Rack 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.640 24" HDPE Pipe 110 LF $65 $7,200 900.640 8" HDPE Perforated Pipe 80 LF $35 $2,800 900.640 8" HDPE Pipe 62 LF $30 $1,900 900.640 Magnetic Locating Tape 100 LF $2 $200 900.645 Wetland Seed - Marsh/Swamp/Bog Mix 8 LB $100 $800 900.645 Wetland Seed - Detention Basin Mix 5 LB $100 $500 900.690 Dewatering 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal 1 $227,700 635.11 Mobilization/Demobilization (5%)$11,400 900.645 Bonds & Insurance (2%)$4,600 Subtotal $243,700 Construction Contigency (14%)$33,300 $277,000 Total Cost Construction Construction Subtotal VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 Total Cost Construction VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Ponds Retrofit Study (1/6 of total) 1 LS $5,050 $5,050 Soil Borings and Testing 1 LS $8,400 $8,400 Wetland Delineation (1/3 of total)1 LS $400 $400 Survey (1/4 of total)1 LS $2,810 $2,810 Final Design Engineering (1/3 of total) 1 LS $16,833 $16,833 Permitting 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $38,493 Bid and Construction Phase Engineering 2 $38,000 $38,000 Administrative 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Easement Assistance 1 LS $0 $0 Legal 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $359,493 $360,000 Acreage of Contributing Watershed Treated 7.12 Retrofit Cost per Acre Treated $50,562 Notes: 1.) Construction cost quantities include Contractor's 15% Overhead and Profit. 3.) Project costs are in 2018 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index for February 2018 = 10889.17. 4.) Assumes that hydric soils onsite can be reused for gravel wetland soil. Cost is to stockpile, test, and place. USE 2.)Bid and construction phase engineering is calculated as per the State of Vermont Pacilities Engineering Division Engineering Fee Allowance Guidance Document, effective September 1, 2011. Actual bid and construction services cost may vary based on final arrangement of bid package and Owner's construction services to be provided. Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Subtotal Other Costs Other Costs Subtotal TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Engineering Engineering Subtotal i Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis Revised Document: March 2010 (Original Document: December 2008) Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 BMP Performance Curve: Infiltration Basin 153 BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 154 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Gravel Wetland Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 48% 61% 82% 91% 95% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Commercial Zn 57% 68% 83% 88% 90% 90% 91% 92%TSS 47% 61% 82% 91% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 27% 42% 51% 58% 61% 65% 66%Industrial Zn 40% 54% 74% 84% 88% 90% 90% 91%TSS 47% 62% 82% 92% 96% 98% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%High-Density Residential Zn 46% 59% 78% 86% 89% 90% 91% 91%TSS 53% 68% 86% 94% 97% 98% 99% 99%TP 20% 27% 42% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Medium-Density Residential Zn 21% 32% 52% 67% 76% 82% 89% 91%TSS 51% 65% 83% 92% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 21% 28% 42% 51% 57% 61% 64% 66%Low-Density Residential Zn 16% 26% 46% 61% 71% 78% 87% 90% Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 174 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond 175 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Wet Pond Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 30% 44% 60% 68% 74% 77% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Commercial Zn 59% 71% 80% 85% 87% 89% 92% 93%TSS 30% 45% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Industrial Zn 50% 64% 77% 82% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 30% 44% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%High-Density Residential Zn 53% 71% 78% 83% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 34% 48% 62% 70% 75% 78% 84% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Medium-Density Residential Zn 33% 49% 65% 73% 78% 82% 87% 90%TSS 33% 47% 61% 69% 74% 78% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Low-Density Residential Zn 28% 43% 60% 69% 75% 79% 85% 89%Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 Kennedy Drive Pond 3South Burlington, VermontSimple Method for Pollutant LoadingsSimple Method - Phosphorous LoadingNo STP Existing Detention Pond Existing UntreatedProposed Upgraded Gravel WetlandPhosphorous Reduction (lbs/yr)Annual Load = (0.226 (P * Pj * Rv) * C * A) * T 16.377.327.446.388.38Where:0.226 =Simple Method CoefficientP =Yearly rainfall depth (inches)Pj =Fraction of rainfall events producing runoff (0.90)Rv =0.05 + 0.009 * (% site imperviousness (Ia)) 0.690.760.630.69C =Flow weighted mean concentration of pollutant (mg/L)A =Area of contributing watershed (acres)8.584.274.318.58T= Treatment Removal Rate (%)1,20 0.18 0 0.61Ia=Impervious Area (acres)6.123.362.766.12P =33.9National Climate Data CenterPj =0.9Coefficient = 0.226Table 1: Pollutant Concentration Values ( C )TSS TP NO3 Cu Zn(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)Cropland 145 0.56 4.06 0.0015 0.016Forest 51 0.11 0.80 0 0Industrial 149 0.32 1.89 0.058 0.671Meadow 51 0.80 0.11 0 0Open 51 0.80 0.11 0 070 0.55 1.83 0.047 0.176142 0.40 0.76 0.054 0.3291. EPA BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland, Land Use: Commercial http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/Guidance/152005.pdfTransportationSources:https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf2. Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Urban Stormwater Retrofit Projects https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/Final_CBP_Approved_Expert_Panel_Report_on_Stormwater_Retrofits--_long.pdf3. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Special Condition Guidance, Appendix V.D - BMP Enhancement, Conversion, and Restoration (05/18/2015)December 18, 2018LandUseResidential 1 Dave Wheeler From:Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:33 AM To:Claudon, Lynnette; Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. Cc:Reilly, John D.; Dave Wheeler; Tom Dipietro Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin: All set with me also. Roger Bergeron Chief Construction Engineer Phone: 802-760-8135 E-mail: roger.bergeron@vermont.gov Department of Environmental Conservation FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION National Life Building MAIN 1 1 National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05620-3510 Construction website: http://dec.vermont.gov/facilities-engineering/water-financing/srf/srfstep3 “National Life Building requires a security access badge. Please make arrangements before visiting and allow extra time” Note: Emails to and from state employees, regarding state business, are public records. From: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:36 PM To: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin, I got them. All set with me. ~Lynnette From: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:27 PM To: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval 2 Lynnette and Roger, I have finished incorporating your review comments on the 100% submission. Attached please find the final design drawings and specifications for the Kennedy Drive Pond 3 project for approval to bid. Please let me know if you have any questions and confirm receipt of attachments. Thank you, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Associate Licensed in VT Responsive. Consistent. Competent.™ 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331, ext 324 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com Our vision is to provide innovative, collaborative and sustainable engineering and planning solutions to the challenges our clients face, while enhancing the communities in which we work and live. We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards while maintaining integrity and respect within our professional relationships. We continue to build a corporate culture that honors and values the individuality and strengths of our team members and our clients. This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com the presumption of significance and is presumed Class II. Thank you, Kirstin From: Heath, Tina [mailto:Tina.Heath@vermont.gov] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:07 PM To: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study Hi all, Thank you for meeting with me last week on October 17 to review the seven stormwater ponds along Kennedy Drive. And thanks for digging up the wetlands permit for the Kennedy Drive expansion. Unfortunately I can’t find any paper files here at my office and it’s tough to determine what’s what in the CUD/ site plans. Does the City have a copy of the original application? Five existing ponds are proposed for retrofit and expansion upgrades to satisfy the Potash Brook FRP and capture additional off‐site runoff. Below is a jurisdictional summary of each pond we visited. The ponds correspond to the site maps we had at the visit. Pond 1: The proposal is to significantly expand the pond towards the west. There are mapped wetlands nearby associated with Potash Brook, and a wetland swale/finger that extends from this complex towards the road where there’s a culvert. This swale would also be considered Class II because it’s contiguous to the larger complex. The expansion would likely impact wetland and buffer and would be difficult to approve with a permit. Alternative sites and designs will need to looked in to that could avoid wetland and buffer impact. Pond 2: The existing pond is located adjacent to mapped Class II wetlands, and it appears that a berm may separate the two. The proposal is to expand the pond in the opposite direction of the wetlands and retrofit a gravel wetland. Because of how close the pond is to the wetlands it is necessary to determine if this pond was originally constructed in upland or wetland. This will give us a sense of where the actual wetland boundary and 50 foot buffer zone is located for delineation purposes. Depending on the boundary, the expansion would either require a permit or be outside of wetland jurisdiction. And in general, if retrofit upgrades like a gravel wetland can be installed within the existing footprint of the pond infrastructure then these types of projects are considered an allowed use. Pond 3: The existing pond sits on a terrace above the large mapped wetland complex. Upgrade proposals are to expand the existing pond and create a new swale to redirect the culvert outflow to the pond. The wetlands should be delineated to determine how much of the proposal is within the 50‐foot buffer zone. There are no significant concerns with this proposal at this time. Pond 4: Upgrades proposed include the expansion of the pond to the southeast. There is an unnamed stream that flows around the perimeter of the existing pond. There is a wetland associated with the stream and is Class II based on presumptions. Expanding into this wetland and buffer would unlikely be permitted, and alternatives would need to be looked into. Pond 5 and Pond 6: no changes to pond 5, abandoning pond 6. Pond 7: This pond is proposed to be expanded, mapped Class II wetlands are nearby. Wetlands would need to be delineated, current proposal would likely impact buffer. The expansion should be reconfigured to minimize impacts as much as possible. Based on discussions at the site visit there’s possibility the expansion could be reconfigured to avoid the buffer zone. Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Best, Best, Tina Tina Heath, District Wetland Ecologist Chittenden County 802‐490‐6202 tina.heath@vermont.gov Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 111 West St Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov See what we’re up to on our Blog, Flow. From: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. [mailto:kworden@hoyletanner.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:05 PM To: April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com>; Heath, Tina <Tina.Heath@vermont.gov> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study April and Tina, I preparation of next week’s site visits, I wanted to forward updated maps prepared by WCA showing the expansion concepts for each of the Kennedy Drive ponds. The attached maps represent the most recent updates to existing and proposed drainage areas, existing and proposed pond footprints, and proposed drainage connection concepts. Let us know if you have any questions. Also, I plan to attend next Tuesday’s (10/17) site visits to answer any engineering related questions about the proposed concepts. Please let me know where to meet you and if we are still planning on a 10:45 am start. Thanks, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Environmental Engineer Licensed in: VT 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. No X No X X No X Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pound 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope %: 5 VT Sampling Point: Up April Moualert, PWS Section, Township, Range: Hinesburg fine sandy loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15"N Long: 73° 10'14"W Datum: significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Up Tree Stratum 30 ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Quercus rubra 40 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU 3 (A) Acer rubrum 10 No FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Yes FAC FAC species 40 120 0 0 Total % Cover of: 0 Acer rubrum Fraxinus americana 5 No FACU UPL species 0 0 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACU species 130 80 =Total Cover 640 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.76 Tilia americana 5 No FACU 170 (A) 15 )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 0 520 60 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Maianthemum canadense 20 Yes FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.30 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X SOIL Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 4-12 10YR 4/3 Loamy/Clayey Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy100 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Yes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. X No X No X X No x x x x x X x x x Yes X Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Enosburg and Whately soils PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15" N Long: 73° 10' 14"W Datum: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pond 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope %: 0 VT Sampling Point: Wet April Moulaert, PWS Section, Township, Range: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size:X 1.X 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.100 =Total Cover Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Phragmites australis 90 Yes FACW 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Typha angustifolia 10 No =Total Cover 190 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.90 100 (A) )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 90 0 UPL species 0 0 FACU species 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: FAC species 0 0 10 10 Total % Cover of: 180 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Wet Tree Stratum ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X x XYes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-1 10YR 2/1 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L) Mucky Loam/Clay Loc2 Texture Remarks Mucky Loam/Clay SOIL Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 1-12 10YR 4/1 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC125 COLLEGE STREET, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401WATERSHED CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, LLC430 SHELBURNE ROAD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05406VERMONT SURVEY AND ENGINEERING, INC.79 RIVER STREET, SUITE 201, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602APRIL 2018PREPARED BY:125 COLLEGE STREET - 4TH FLOORBURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTKENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER PONDSWETLAND BUFFER IMPACTSDRAFTSUBMITTALREVIEWI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 G-00.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:25 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVEDNOTE:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-1P3-12KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:29 PM, 1:2 DDDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-2P3-23KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:36 PM, 1:2 DKENNEDY DRIVENOTES:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-3P3-34KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 LANDSCAPING PLAN PLANT TABLESYMBOLCOMMON NAMELEGEND:I:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-3.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:43 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVENOTE:8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-1P5-15KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:48 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-2P5-26KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:54 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVE8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-1P6-17KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:01 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-2P6-28KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN LEGEND:SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:07 PM, 1:2 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources Watershed Management Division One National Life Drive, Main Bldg., 2nd Floor [phone] 802-828-1535 Montpelier, VT 05620 [fax] 802-828-1544 To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health, for the benefit of this and future generations. NOTICE OF DRAFT WETLAND GENERAL PERMIT #3-9026 The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources is issuing a draft Wetland General Permit for public comment pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §905b and §9.7 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR). The General Permit is for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted within Class II wetlands and associated buffer zones. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. Project proponents may self-verify coverage and must register the activity with the Vermont Wetlands Program, except for farm practices described in the permit. The specific water quality improvement projects include stream crossing structure replacement, failed wastewater system replacement, retrofits for Stormwater treatment practices, and Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Services Conservation Practice Standards on farms for access roads, heavy use protection areas, stream crossings, trails and walkways, and artificial wetlands. The NRCS Practice Standards can be found at: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VT/TABLE_OF_CONSERVATION_PRACTICES.pdf. The Secretary is issuing a General Permit in order to more effectively and efficiently regulate and protect Vermont’s significant wetlands. The Secretary reserves the right to require an individual permit or different general permit if deemed necessary to protect wetlands. Although individuals may self-verify their project’s eligibility, Wetlands Program Staff are available to consult. This consultation is particularly helpful for determining if the wetland is a bog, fen, or vernal pool which would need to be avoided for permit coverage. This General Permit does not supersede any existing Vermont Wetland Rule exemptions or allowed uses. Below is a list of activities which would not be eligible for this proposed general permit because the activities do not need any permit for the activities: Food and Crop Area Exemption: wetland areas used to grow food or crops in connection with farming activities that have been in ordinary rotation since February 23, 1990 are excluded from regulation under the VWR. From February 23, 1990 to present, all new farming activities within significant wetlands or their buffer zones fall under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This exclusion expires when the area is no longer used to grow food or crops, or is no longer in ordinary rotation. When the exclusion expires, the area may then be considered a Class II wetland, and therefore will then also be subject to the 50 foot buffer zone again. For example, this exemption expires whenever a pasture or hayfield wetland will be turned into a walkway or access road because the structure is not growing food or crop. Allowed Use §6.12 The maintenance, reconstruction, or routine repair of structures and facilities (including ski trails, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings) in compliance with the Vermont Wetland Rules in existence as of the date of their construction or in existence as of February 23, 1990 or additions to such structures or facilities which do not involve substantial expansion or modification in a wetland or buffer. Allowed Use §6.13 Emergency repair, cleanup, or maintenance of structures and facilities (including utility poles and lines, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings), or emergency actions required to provide for public health, safety and welfare for disaster relief in connection with a federal or state-designated disaster. Complete copies of the draft permit can be obtained by writing to the address below, or by clicking on the following link: https://enb.vermont.gov/ Any person may file comments in writing on the draft Wetland General Permit through May 9, 2018 with: 1 STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WETLANDS GENERAL PERMIT 3-9026 Water Quality Improvement Projects in Significant Wetlands and Buffers I. Purpose The Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Secretary) hereby issues this general permit pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 905b and §§ 9.8 and 9.9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR) (effective April 1, 2017), for the purpose of expediting the permitting process for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted in significant wetlands and their buffer zones. II. Findings Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 913 and Section 9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR), any activity in a Class II wetland or its associated buffer zone is prohibited unless it is an allowed use, or it is authorized by a permit, conditional use determination, or order issued by the Secretary. Pursuant to Section 9.8 of the VWR, the Secretary may issue general permits authorizing discrete categories of activities or uses in discrete categories of Class II wetlands. The Secretary may, at his or her discretion, issue a nonreporting general permit (VWR § 9.9(g)). Activities and uses eligible for authorization under a general permit must be found to comply with the VWR and have no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the impacted wetland. This finding must be based on an evaluation of both the direct and immediate effects of the proposed activity on the wetland, as well as the cumulative or ongoing effects of the activity on the wetland. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. If eligible projects are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, there will be minimal or no alteration of the physical and vegetative wetland characteristics that provide the following functions: water storage for flood water and storm runoff (VWR §5.1), surface and groundwater protection (§5.2), fisheries habitat (§5.3), wildlife and migratory bird habitat (§5.4), and erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil (§5.10). Potential impacts to exemplary wetland natural communities (§5.5), and threatened and endangered species habitat (§5.6), are limited through the Limitations on Coverage in Part V of this general permit. Given the limited nature of the activities eligible for coverage under this general permit, no potential impacts are predicted for education and research in natural science (§5.7), recreational value and economic benefits (§5.8), and open space and aesthetics (§5.9). Based on the factors described above, if an eligible project is conducted in accordance with the terms and 2 conditions of this general permit, The Secretary has determined that the activity will comply with the Vermont Wetland Rules and will not result in undue adverse impacts to wetland functions and values. In determining whether coverage under this general permit should be granted, the Secretary has evaluated the potential effect of the eligible activities on the basis of both their direct and immediate effects as well as on the basis of any cumulative or on-going effects. III. Definitions a. Managed Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that have been managed and maintained, including mowed lawns, mowed road shoulders, parking areas, roads, hayfields, managed pasture, and croplands. This category does not include managed forest or land that has been allowed to lay fallow for three or more years. The clearing of woody vegetation from a natural wetland to create a managed wetland requires a wetlands permit. b. Natural Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that are naturally vegetated and that have not been managed or have been minimally managed. This category includes forested swamps, shrub swamps, marshes, thickets, and areas managed for silviculture. c. Practice means any activity eligible for coverage under this general permit. d. Project means a plan proposed by a person that includes the construction of one or more practices eligible for coverage under this general permit. A project shall specify the location and design of the practices that will be constructed, as well as the timeframe within which construction shall take place. For STP projects described in subpart (b) below, the retrofits for a parcel or specified development are considered a single project. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this permit. A person shall not intentionally subdivide the components of a project in order to qualify for coverage under this general permit. IV. Activities Eligible for Coverage Under this General Permit Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit include certain water quality improvement projects on farms, certain retrofit stormwater treatment projects, and replacement of stream crossing structures and failed wastewater treatment systems. To be eligible for coverage under this general permit, an activity must meet the conditions and criteria listed in subparts a), b), c), or d) of this part, as well as the General Conditions listed in Part VI. Permitting thresholds for activities are based on whether the proposed activity takes place in a “managed” or “natural” wetland. a. Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms. The Secretary has determined that certain water quality improvement practices, when conducted according to the standards listed below, result in reduced impact to significant wetlands, and a net reduction in pollutant loading to waters of the state. When conducted on land that is actively used for farming activities as defined in Section 3 3.1(a) of the Vermont Wetland Rules, the activities listed below may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed without notification to the Secretary. To be eligible for non-reporting coverage, project activities must comply with the impact thresholds identified below, and must be conducted in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standards for Vermont, specified below. The activities eligible for non-reporting coverage are as follows: i. Construction of Stream Crossings and Trails and Walkways: 1. Construction of Stream Crossings, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #578. Individual stream crossings shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Construction of Trails and Walkways, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #575. Individual trails and walkways shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. ii. Other Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms: Construction of the following practices shall be subject to the impact thresholds identified below. Construction of more than one the following practices shall cumulatively result in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to any wetland or buffer, as specified below: 1. Construction of access roads, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #560, impacts no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Designation and Construction of a Heavy Use Protection Area, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #561, impacting no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetland. 3. Construction of artificial wetlands, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #656, provided that the constructed wetland is built in a managed buffer, and does not impact more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetlands. b. Retrofit of Stormwater Treatment Practices. The Secretary has determined that the installation of certain Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs) to address existing impervious surface is a critical step in implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in stormwater impaired watersheds, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog. Additionally, existing sites with three or more acres of 4 impervious surface will require installation of STPs in order to meet the requirements of the forthcoming stormwater developed lands general permit, which is critical for meeting the Lake Champlain TMDL. The retrofit of stormwater infrastructure with STPs can result in improved water quality in these watersheds. Unless otherwise specified in this general permit, projects retrofitting existing impervious surfaces with stormwater STPs according to the terms of a validly-issued operational stormwater permit, authorization under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit, or Municipal Roads General Permit, may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed with construction following registration of the project. To be eligible for coverage, projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Installation of STPs, including installation of multiple STPs that are part of a single retrofit project, must impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, no more than 2,000 square feet of managed wetland, and no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, resulting in no more than 5,000 total square feet of impact to any wetland or buffer. ii. Permittees must register the location and type of STPs to be constructed prior to commencing construction. c. Stream crossing structure replacement for Public Safety, Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), or for Flood Resiliency Improvements. The Secretary has determined that certain impacts associated with stream crossing structure replacements that do not qualify as allowed uses under VWR § 6.12 are necessary to improve public safety, aquatic organism passage design, and improvements to stream flow and flood capacity. The allowed use in Section 6.12 of the VWR allows for the maintenance, reconstruction or routine repair of structures and facilities, if there is not substantial expansion beyond the existing footprint of the structure or additional impacts are not required to access the structure. But expansion of a crossing structure is often necessary to improve AOP and flood resiliency. Furthermore, temporary access to make improvements or to allow for continued public use of the road is often necessary to implement the replacement. In order to be eligible for coverage under this general permit for activities outside of the footprint of an existing structure, replacements must obtain authorization from one of the following under the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stream Alteration General Permit: E. General Permit Coverage for Emergency Protective Measures, or F. General Permit Coverage of Next-Flood Protective Measures. To be eligible for coverage impact totals from the complete project shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. Projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Expansion of the existing structure (expansion of culvert length, installation of wing walls, replacement with wider structure etc.) shall not result in more than 1,000 square feet of impact in wetland or buffer zone. ii. Temporary reroutes to allow for public travel and temporary access for construction purposes shall not result in more than 5,000 square feet of impact to wetland and buffer zone. All impacted area shall be promptly 5 restored (return grade, seed, and mulch) upon the completion of the project, and shall be in place no longer than 12 months. Where temporary reroutes are necessary over forested wetland and buffer, stumps shall remain in place. d. Replacement of Failed Wastewater Systems in Managed Buffer Zones. The Secretary has determined that the prompt replacement of failed wastewater systems is necessary to abate health and environmental hazards associated with the discharge of contaminated water and sewage. To be eligible for coverage under this permit, there must be an immediate and ongoing health or environmental hazard associated with the failed system, the building structure serviced by the failed system in question must be occupied, and the system must still be in use at the time of failure. Projects must also meet the following criteria, and impacts from the new system installation shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of impact to managed buffer zone (eg lawn or other maintained buffer): i. There is no alternative location outside the wetland buffer that is reasonably available to the landowner that is adequately suited for wastewater disposal, including existing easements on adjoining property; ii. The new system will comply with the Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules including the variance section for “best fix.” V. Obtaining Authorization a. Non-reporting Coverage: Individuals conducting water quality improvement projects on farms, pursuant to Part III(a) of this general permit, may proceed without application or notification to the Agency, provided that the project will meet the terms and conditions of this general permit. b. Registration of Project: For all other eligible projects, pursuant to Part III(b), (c), and (d) of this general permit, may proceed without application for coverage, but must register the project on the Agency’s website prior to beginning construction. Registration must include the title of the entity conducting the activity, the location of the activity, and a description of the activity. VI. Limitations on coverage The following activities are not eligible for coverage under this general permit: a. Activities that are allowed uses under §6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. b. Activities within 50 feet of wetland areas used to grow food or crops that fall under the Farming Exemption in Section 3.1 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. Activities in these areas do not require permit coverage. c. Activities within a Class I wetland or buffer zone. d. Water quality improvement projects impacting more than the allowable square footage for each wetland and buffer type, and eligible activity. 6 e. Water quality improvement projects identified in Part III(2)(a) on land that is not actively used for farming activities. A property is considered to be actively used for farming when farming activities are continuously conducted on the property. f. Activities affecting wetlands significant for the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE) Species Habitat function pursuant to §5.6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory. g. Activities located in or adjacent to (within 50 feet of) bogs, fens, or vernal pools. Bogs, fens, and vernal pools are identified on the ANR Atlas, which is found at: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/WetlandProjects/default.html. The Wetlands Program may be contacted to verify if a wetland is one of these types of wetlands. h. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands that are significant for the Exemplary Wetland Natural Community function pursuant to §5.5 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory Program. i. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands at or above 2,500 feet in elevation (headwaters wetlands). j. Unpermitted as-built projects that required a permit and did not obtain one in violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules. k. With the exception of stream crossings and trails and walkways as defined in Part IV(a)(i) of this general permit, activities that are components of a single project or planned phases of a multiphase project, where the entire project exceeds the eligibility thresholds in Part IV of this general permit, are not eligible for coverage. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this general permit. VII. Relation to Other Permits Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit may also require a permit pursuant to other local, state, and federal laws, including a federal wetlands permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Applicants are responsible for determining if any such permits apply to their proposed activities and obtaining any such permits. VIII. Required Best Management Practices a. Best Management Practices Applicable to All Eligible Projects: i. Steps shall be taken to prevent the transport of sediment into any wetland or other surface water and to promote re-vegetation following the completion of work: 1. If a construction stormwater permit is required (i.e. over an acre of soil disturbance), the permittee shall follow the terms and conditions of that permit. Otherwise, the permittee shall utilize recommended sediment and erosion controls as needed and as described in the Vermont Department of Environmental 7 Conservation's Low Risk Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control, or other equivalent controls as approved by the Agency. 2. All sediment controls and construction fencing shall be installed prior to beginning any earthwork for the project and removed following the successful establishment of vegetation. 3. Disturbed soils shall be seeded and mulched within 48 hours of final grading. Appropriate wetland seed mixes shall be used within wetlands. Appropriate erosion control/conservation seed mixes shall be used within buffers. All areas shall be stabilized within wetlands and buffer zones and mulched with straw or weed-free hay to limit the spread of invasive species. ii. If the impact is temporary in nature, stockpiling of material shall be done on filter fabric or equivalent in the wetland and buffer zone. Temporarily removed wetland soils shall be put back in place in the reverse order that they were removed and restored to their prior condition to match the original soil profile. iii. Removed and stockpiled materials shall be located outside of wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters, and appropriate erosion controls measures as described above shall be used. iv. Impacts from equipment access to the project site shall be limited by utilizing existing or low impact routes using the following sequence of options listed in order of preference: 1. Access should be limited to upland areas or existing maintained roads to the extent practicable; 2. Access on other existing primitive roads or existing managed areas (as defined in Section III(1)a) in wetlands or buffer zones; 3. Where existing roads are not an option for access, minimize rutting and earth disturbing activities by: 4. Accessing wetland areas with mats or under frozen or dry conditions. Winter construction under frozen conditions may minimize ground disturbance and reduce impacts to wildlife; 5. Delineating the limits of disturbance using a combination of silt fence, flagging, and/or snow fence; 6. Using low-ground pressure or track vehicles in wetlands to minimize compaction and rutting; 7. Minimizing equipment use in wetlands and limiting vehicle trips; and 8. Restoring the project site in order to reverse soil compaction and stabilize the soil on the site, and replanting the site if vegetation has been destroyed. v. Waste disposal and equipment refueling shall be limited to areas outside wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters. vi. Final earthwork shall return wetlands and buffer zones to the original grade. 8 vii. The potential for the introduction and spread of invasive species in wetlands and buffer zones shall be decreased by using the following methods: 1. All equipment shall be cleaned so as to contain no observable soil or vegetation prior to work in wetlands and buffer zones to prevent the spread of invasive species; 2. If removed material contains invasive species, care should be taken to dispose of the material in a manner that does not spread the invasive species to new areas b. Activity-Specific Best Management Practices: i. Installation of underground facilities in wetlands or buffer zones: 1. Trenches shall be filled, mulched, and seeded immediately or upon final inspection of the line; 2. If a directional bore is required, the depth of the bore beneath the wetland shall not puncture a confining layer essential to maintain wetland hydrology; 3. If drilling or boring is required, drilling fluid shall be composed of bentonite clay, clean water, and Agency approved additives (e.g., "environmentally safe" drill soap or polymers). ii. Activities in surface water body margins: 1. Soil and vegetation disturbance shall be minimized to avoid unnecessary impacts to waterbodies: a. Avoid removing vegetation until just before beginning construction that disturbs the soil; b. Minimize the area of bare soil within the approved work zone as much as possible; c. Maintain as much of a naturally vegetated buffer as possible around wetlands and surface waters to slow runoff and trap sediments; d. Phase construction to minimize the extent of soils disturbed simultaneously; and e. Dredged material shall be properly disposed of and dewatering of dredged material must take place such that a turbid discharge to waters of the State does not occur; IX. General Conditions a. All activities shall be completed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this general permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 37 and may be cause for an enforcement action or revocation and reissuance, modification, or termination of the permittee's authorization under this general permit. b. For projects requiring registration, the permittee shall register their project with the Vermont Wetlands Program prior to the start of construction. 9 c. Activities must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, both temporary and permanent, to wetlands, buffers and wetland functions and values to the maximum extent practicable at the project site. Consideration of mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, or restoring) is required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to protected wetland function and value are no more than minimal. For NRCS practices, consideration of avoidance and minimization of impacts must be consistent with the Wetland Protection Policy required for all NRCS technical assistance and funding. d. Permittees must comply with the required best management practices listed in Section VII of this general permit. e. This permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to comply with any other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. f. The Agency maintains continuing jurisdiction over a project authorized under this general permit and may at any time order remedial measures if it appears likely that undue adverse impacts to protected wetland functions and values are or will occur. X. Appeals Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Division; and must be signed by the appellant or the appellant’s attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project, or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Division is: 32 Cherry St.; 2nd Floor, Suite 303; Burlington, VT 05401 (Tel. # 802-828-1660). XI. Effective Date and Permit Term This permit shall become effective upon signing and shall expire five years from the date of signing. State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Emily Boedecker, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: 10 Pete LaFlamme, Director Watershed Management Division ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 On May 18, 2018, City of South Burlington, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 filed application #4C1122-1 for a project generally described as retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. The District #4 Environmental Commission is reviewing this application under Act 250 Rule 51 -- Minor Applications. A copy of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the office listed below. The application and a draft permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (http://nrb.vermont.gov) by clicking on "Act 250 Database" and entering the project number “4C1122-1”. No hearing will be held and a permit may be issued unless, on or before June 15, 2018, a person notifies the Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the Commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request must be in writing to the address below, must state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. If you feel that any of the District Commission members listed on the attached Certificate of Service under “For Your Information” may have a conflict of interest, or if there is any other reason a member should be disqualified from sitting on this case, please contact the district coordinator as soon as possible, no later than prior to the response date listed above. The Applicant has requested a partial waiver of notice to adjoining landowners, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 10(F). The District Commission has granted the waiver request based on the determination that the adjoining landowners whose notice has been waived, reasonably could not be affected by the proposed project and that serving notice on all the adjoining landowners constitutes a significant administrative burden without corresponding public benefit. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by June 15, 2018. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, affected state agencies, and adjoining property owners and other persons to the extent they have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the 10 criteria. Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. Section 6085(c)(5). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 22nd day of May, 2018. By: /s/Stephanie H. Monaghan Stephanie H. Monaghan District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 802/879-5662 stephanie.monaghan@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.minor.notice.docx State of Vermont __________________________________________________________ LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT This is a PROPOSED permit; please submit any written comments to Stephanie H. Monaghan, 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 by June 15, 2018. A permit will NOT be issued until the District Commission receives and reviews the following information: 1. Construction General Permit issued by the ANR-DEC Watershed Management Division. CASE NO: 4C1122-1 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED City of South Burlington 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 (Act 250) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit Amendment #4C1122-1, pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6093. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Book 78, Page 164; and Book 681, Pages 394-453 of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of deeds to City of South Burlington; and Book 175, Pages 428-429, of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to Windridge Homeowners Association. This permit specifically authorizes the retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. Jurisdiction attaches because the Project constitutes a material change to a permitted development or subdivision, and thus requires a permit amendment pursuant to Act 250 Rule 34. 1. The Permittee, and its assigns and successors in interest, is obligated by this permit to complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions. 2. The project shall be completed, operated and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this permit and the permit application, plans, and exhibits on file with the District Environmental Commission and other material representations. The approved plans are: Sheet G-0.1 - “General Notes, Legend and Drawing Index,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet G-0.2 - “General Notes,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Page 2 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 Sheet C-1.3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.5 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.6 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.7 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.8 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-2.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-3.3 - “Erosion Control Details,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-A,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-B,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); and “Total Area Plan ROW-C,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ). 3. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4C1122 and amendments are in full force and effect except as further amended herein. 4. The Permittee shall comply with all of the conditions of the following Agency of Natural Resources Permit: a. Authorization of Notice of Intent # under Construction General Permit #3-9020 issued on (date) by the ANR Watershed Management Division 5. Any nonmaterial changes to the permit listed in the preceding condition shall be automatically incorporated herein upon issuance by the Agency of Natural Resources. Page 3 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 6. Representatives of the State of Vermont shall have access to the property covered by this permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this permit. 7. A copy of this permit and plans shall be on the site at all times throughout the construction process. 8. No change shall be made to the design, operation or use of this project without a permit amendment issued by the District Commission or a jurisdictional opinion from the District Coordinator that a permit is not required. 9. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8005(c), the District Commission may at any time require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the project is in compliance with the terms of this permit. 10. The conditions of this permit and the land uses permitted herein shall run with the land and are binding upon and enforceable against the Permittee and their successors and assigns. 11. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00AM to 5:00PM. 12. The Permittee shall apply and maintain water and/or other agents approved by the Watershed Management Division in the Project’s Erosion Prevention and Control Plan on all roadways or disturbed areas within the project during construction and until pavement and/or vegetation is fully established to control dust. 13. At a minimum, the Permittee shall comply with the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 14. The Permittee shall comply with Exhibits #001 and __ (Schedule B; and Erosion Control Details) for erosion prevention and sediment control. The Permittee shall prevent the transport of any sediment beyond that area necessary for construction approved herein. All erosion prevention and sediment control devices shall be periodically cleaned, replaced and maintained until vegetation is permanently established on all slopes and disturbed areas. 15. All mulch, siltation dams, water bars and other temporary devices shall be installed immediately upon grading and shall be maintained until all roads are permanently surfaced and all permanent vegetation is established on all slopes and disturbed areas. Topsoil stockpiles shall have the exposed earth completely mulched and have siltation checks around the base. 16. All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilization within 14 days of the initial disturbance. After this time, any disturbance in the area must be stabilized at the end of each work day. The following exceptions apply: i) Stabilization is not required if work is to continue in the area within the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours. ii) Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet or greater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches). 17. All disturbed areas of the site shall be stabilized, seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of final grading. All disturbed areas not involved in winter construction shall Page 4 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 be mulched and seeded before October 1. Between the periods of October 1 to April 15, all earth disturbing work shall conform with the “Requirements for Winter Construction” standards and specifications of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 18. In addition to conformance with all erosion prevention and sediment control conditions, the Permittee shall not cause, permit or allow the discharge of waste material into any surface waters. Compliance with the requirements of this condition does not absolve the Permittee from compliance with 10 V.S.A. (§§ 1250-1284) Chapter 47, Vermont's Water Pollution Control Law. 19. Any extracted stumps shall be disposed of on-site above the seasonal high water table and not in any wetland, or at a State approved landfill, so as to prevent groundwater pollution. 20. The Permittee and all assigns and successors in interest shall continually maintain the landscaping as approved in Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan) by replacing any dead or diseased plantings within the season or as soon as possible after the ground thaws, whichever is sooner. 21. Prior to any site work, the Permittee shall install and maintain temporary fencing along the tree line and around trees to be retained as depicted on Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan). 22. No exterior lighting or signage is proposed in conjunction with the Project. 23. The Permittee shall provide each prospective purchaser of any interest in this Project a copy of the Land Use Permit Amendment before any written contract of sale is entered into. 24. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1) this permit amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term, as long as there is compliance with the conditions herein. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, this permit shall expire three years from the date of issuance if the Permittee has not commenced construction and made substantial progress toward completion within the three year period in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 6091(b). 25. All site work and construction shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans by October 1, 2021, unless an extension of this date is approved in writing by the Commission. Such requests to extend must be filed prior to the deadline and approval may be granted without public hearing. 26. The Permittee shall file a Certificate of Actual Construction Costs, on forms available from the Natural Resources Board, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6083a(g) within one month after construction has been substantially completed or two years from the date of this permit, whichever shall occur first. Application for extension of time for good cause shown may be made to the District Commission. If actual construction costs exceed the original estimate, a supplemental fee based on actual construction costs must be paid at the time of certification in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of application. Upon request, the Permittee shall provide all documents or other information Page 5 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 necessary to substantiate the certification. Pursuant to existing law, failure to file the certification or pay any supplemental fee due constitutes grounds for permit revocation. The certificate of actual construction costs and any supplemental fee (by check payable to the "State of Vermont") shall be mailed to: Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201; Attention: Certification. 27. Failure to comply with any condition herein may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A. sec. 6027(g). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this day of June, 2018. By__________________________ Thomas A. Little, Chair District #4 Commission Members participating in this decision: Parker Riehle Monique Gilbert Any party may file a motion to alter with the District Commission within 15 days from the date of this decision, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 31(A). Any appeal of this decision must be filed with the Superior Court, Environmental Division within 30 days of the date the decision was issued, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220. The Notice of Appeal must comply with the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (VRECP). The appellant must file with the Notice of Appeal the $265 entry fee required by 32 V.S.A. § 1431. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201, and on other parties in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. Decisions on minor applications may be appealed only if a hearing was held by the district commission. Please note that there are certain limitations on the right to appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(k). For additional information on filing appeals, see the Court’s website at: http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx or call (802) 828-1660. The Court’s mailing address is: Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401. Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.draft.permit.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 22nd day of May 2018, a copy of the foregoing ACT 250 NOTICE OF MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals without email addresses and by email to the individuals with email addresses listed. Note: any recipient may change its preferred method of receiving notices and other documents by contacting the District Office staff at the mailing address or email below. If you have elected to receive notices and other documents by email, it is your responsibility to notify our office of any email address changes. All email replies should be sent to nrb-act250essex@vermont.gov. City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 stormwater@sburl.com Thomas DiPietro, Deputy DPW Director/SW Superintendent 104 Landfill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 tdipietro@sburl.com kworden@hoyletanner.com Donna Kinville, City Clerk Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 dkinville@sburl.com Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT 05404 rmahony@ccrpcvt.org Elizabeth Lord, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05602-3901 anr.act250@vermont.gov FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission Thomas Little, Chair Parker Riehle/Monique Gilbert 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Barry Murphy/Vt. Dept. of Public Service 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 barry.murphy@vermont.gov Craig Keller/John Gruchacz/Jeff Ramsey/C. Clow VTrans Policy, Planning & Research Bureau One National Life Drive, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633 craig.keller@vermont.gov; john.gruchacz@vermont.gov jeff.ramsey@vermont.gov; christopher.clow@vermont.gov Vt. Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets 116 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 AGR.Act250@vermont.gov Division for Historic Preservation National Life Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 scott.dillon@vermont.gov james.duggan@vermont.gov NRCS, District Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service 68 Catamount Park, Ste. B Middlebury, VT 05753 marybeth.whitten@vt.usda.gov Winooski NRCD Office 617 Comstock Road, Suite 1 Berlin, VT 05602 whiterivernrcd@gmail.com Ethan Tapper, County Forester/FPR John Gobeille, ANR/Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 ethan.tapper@vermont.gov john.gobeille@vermont.gov Seven Days/Classified Ad Section 255 South Champlain Street, PO Box 1164 Burlington, VT 05402 classifieds@sevendaysvt.com Green Mountain Power Corporation c/o Kim Jones 163 Acorn Lane Colchester, VT 05446 kim.jones@greenmountainpower.com Kate Talbot/Vermont Gas Systems PO Box 467 Burlington, VT 05402 ktalbot@vermontgas.com Efficiency Vermont 128 Lakeside Ave., Suite 401 Burlington, VT 05401 pics@veic.org Michael Barsotti, Water Quality Director Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 mike.barsotti@champlainwater.org ADJOINING LANDOWNERS Available via: https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/vtANR/Act250SearchResults.aspx?Num=4 C1122-1 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 22nd day of May, 2018. Natural Resources Board Technician 879-5614 christine.commo@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1 cos.docx 1 Dave Wheeler From:Pfeiffer, Rebecca <Rebecca.Pfeiffer@vermont.gov> Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 1:37 PM To:Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A.; Dave Wheeler Cc:Alexander, Gretchen; ANR - Act 250 Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project - Curtesy Review Hello Kirstin & Dave, This email is a follow-up to our site visit on Wednesday, April 18th. We met to look at any potential floodplain or river corridor impacts from the conversion/improvements to the existing Kennedy Drive stormwater ponds 2 & 3. As Kirstin had stated below, these improvements would be reviewed under Act 250, and our office would be reviewing impacts to floodplains or river corridors under Criterion 1D – Floodways. Under Criterion 1D, the Agency of Natural Resources defines the floodway (called the ANR floodway) using the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) to assess inundation floodplain areas and at the ANR River Corridor maps to assess impacts that may exacerbate riverine erosion hazards. In my 4/4 email below, I have a screenshot from the ANR Atlas that shows the FEMA-mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in gold and the ANR-mapped River Corridor shown in light yellow in the area around ponds 2 & 3. Inundation Flood Hazards: For both Ponds 2 & 3, the FEMA mapped floodplain is shown to be adjacent to the area of the ponds, especially for pond 2. On our 4/18 site visit, we met to see if the project would result in any filling or other impacts to the FEMA-mapped SFHA. Pond 3 is shown to be a bit further from the edge of the floodplain on the maps, and when we went on site, it was clearly located above the surrounding lower area that is mapped as floodplain. Therefore, Pond 3 is non-jurisdictional based on the work that is being proposed at this time. For pond 2, the 50% plan set that you had sent for my review shows the edge of the FEMA SFHA cutting into the western side of the existing pond. As we discussed on site, the proposal is to raise the existing berm on the western side by ~3’ and convert the pond into a gravel wetland. The proposal also includes a cut of material on the upslope side on the SE part of the pond in order to expand the pond’s capacity. From our discussion it appears that pond 2 would be considered to be located in the “ANR floodway” for the purposes of Act 250. When we review proposals located in the ANR floodway, our Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure spells out the standards that we use to make recommendations to the District Commission for 1D considerations. When looking at inundation floodplain impacts, our policy is to maintain flood storage, i.e. for any fill or flood storage is lost due to a proposal, then that flood storage is regained on the site. For pond 2, we do not have any concerns based on the plans as reviewed and as we discussed on site 4/18/18. Although the berm on the western edge of the pond will be raised by ~ 3’, some new flood storage will be created within the pond. Additionally, the large Potash Brook wetland floodplain complex already provides an abundant amount of flood water storage, so the small volume of fill being added at the edge of this large floodplain would not appear to have an adverse impact on flood water storage. River Corridor/Erosion Hazards: In an earlier email exchange, we had determined that there were no river corridor impacts from the stormwater pond conversions. I’ve included a screen shot of the updated river corridor for the area around Pond 2 & 3. The river corridor for the site is actually a bit more narrow than what is shown on the ANR Atlas, since there has been a field assessment for the Potash Brook in this location. The field data helped Gretchen to refine the corridor, and that new corridor based on field data is shown below. The orange-lined corridor is what is found on the ANR Atlas, while the red-lined corridor is the updated corridor based on field data. Therefore, the project does not appear to have any impacts that may affect riverine erosion hazards. ACT 250 District Commission Application #: Exhibit #: Date Received: # 4, 6, 9 4C1122-1 020 5/16/18 ATTACHMENT B Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - Other flows above WQv Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - WQv 1S DA (with expansion) 14S DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) 22S Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) 24S Expanded Portion of DA Only 3P Existing Pond as Constructed 17P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 18P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-1821P Node is just for combining flows - no storage Routing Diagram for Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 12/18/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 3.469 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 1.174 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.279 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 22S, 24S) 8.581 97 Modified CN (14S) 7.743 98 Paved parking, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 3.558 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.940 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 22S) 25.744 88 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 11.212 HSG A 1S, 22S, 24S 4.732 HSG B 1S, 24S 1.219 HSG C 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 HSG D 8.581 Other 14S 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 3.469 1.174 0.279 0.000 0.000 4.922 >75% Grass cover, Good 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.581 8.581 Modified CN 14S 7.743 3.558 0.940 0.000 0.000 12.241 Paved parking 1S, 22S, 24S 11.212 4.732 1.219 0.000 8.581 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 3P 270.32 269.00 150.0 0.0088 0.010 15.0 0.0 0.0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-275.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 27501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=8.581 ac 71.32% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.26"Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=2.87 cfs 0.902 af Runoff Area=8.581 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.65"Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 Runoff=5.78 cfs 1.181 af Runoff Area=4.268 ac 78.77% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.39"Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=1.64 cfs 0.494 af Runoff Area=4.314 ac 63.95% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.13"Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ Runoff=3.07 cfs 0.408 af Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af Inflow=1.64 cfs 0.494 afPond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Primary=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf Inflow=2.87 cfs 0.902 afPond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf Inflow=5.78 cfs 1.181 afPond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Inflow=3.13 cfs 0.902 afPond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Primary=3.13 cfs 0.902 af Total Runoff Area = 25.744 ac Runoff Volume = 2.986 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.39" 52.45% Pervious = 13.503 ac 47.55% Impervious = 12.241 ac NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 1.735 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.139 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.871 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8.581 Weighted Average 2.461 28.68% Pervious Area 6.120 71.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 154.2 1,605 0.0007 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=0.902 af Runoff Depth=1.26" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ 2.87 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description * 8.581 97 Modified CN 8.581 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 85.3 1,605 0.0007 0.31 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=1.181 af Runoff Depth=1.65" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 5.78 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.099 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2.892 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.268 Weighted Average 0.906 21.23% Pervious Area 3.362 78.77% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 146.2 1,496 0.0006 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 112' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.268 ac Runoff Volume=0.494 af Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ 1.64 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff = 3.07 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.927 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.980 98 Paved parking, HSG A 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.041 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 4.314 Weighted Average 1.555 36.05% Pervious Area 2.759 63.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 39.9 636 0.0031 0.27 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 579' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.314 ac Runoff Volume=0.408 af Runoff Depth=1.13" Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ 3.07 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Area = 4.268 ac, 78.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Outflow = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Atten= 20%, Lag= 47.0 min Primary = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 270.57' Surf.Area= 0.038 ac Storage= 0.009 af Peak Elev= 274.07' @ 14.60 hrs Surf.Area= 0.084 ac Storage= 0.232 af (0.223 af above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 686.5 min calculated for 0.486 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 657.2 min ( 1,553.5 - 896.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 270.34' 0.504 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 270.34 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.036 270.67 0.039 0.012 0.012 0.039 270.99 0.043 0.013 0.025 0.043 271.32 0.046 0.015 0.040 0.047 271.65 0.050 0.016 0.056 0.051 271.98 0.054 0.017 0.073 0.055 272.31 0.059 0.019 0.092 0.060 272.63 0.064 0.020 0.111 0.065 272.96 0.068 0.022 0.133 0.070 273.29 0.075 0.024 0.157 0.077 276.90 0.119 0.347 0.504 0.125 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.32'15.0" Round Culvert L= 150.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 270.32' / 269.00' S= 0.0088 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 270.57'1.5" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 273.90'64.0" W x 3.5" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 1 274.90'26.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #5 Secondary 274.90'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 2.00 Width (feet) 4.00 20.00 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=1.30 cfs @ 14.60 hrs HW=274.07' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.30 cfs of 8.25 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 8.93 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.19 cfs @ 1.32 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=270.57' (Free Discharge) 5=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=4.268 ac Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af 1.64 cfs 1.31 cfs 1.31 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Outflow = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af, Atten= 45%, Lag= 87.3 min Primary = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.73' @ 15.33 hrs Surf.Area= 11,784 sf Storage= 23,178 cf (22,268 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,488.8 min calculated for 0.893 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,433.5 min ( 2,338.2 - 904.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.56 cfs @ 15.33 hrs HW=275.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.84 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.44 cfs @ 1.18 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf 2.87 cfs 1.58 cfs 1.58 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.65" for 1-Year event Inflow = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af Outflow = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af, Atten= 24%, Lag= 31.2 min Primary = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.87' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 11,931 sf Storage= 24,323 cf (23,414 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,142.0 min calculated for 1.172 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,107.0 min ( 1,956.3 - 849.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=4.35 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=275.87' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.99 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 4.23 cfs @ 1.69 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf 5.78 cfs 4.37 cfs 4.37 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 8.582 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Primary = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.582 ac 3.13 cfs 3.13 cfs Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - Other flows above WQv Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - WQv 1S DA (with expansion) 14S DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) 22S Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) 24S Expanded Portion of DA Only 3P Existing Pond as Constructed 17P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 18P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-1821P Node is just for combining flows - no storage Routing Diagram for Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 12/18/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 3.469 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 1.174 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.279 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 22S, 24S) 8.581 97 Modified CN (14S) 7.743 98 Paved parking, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 3.558 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.940 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 22S) 25.744 88 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 11.212 HSG A 1S, 22S, 24S 4.732 HSG B 1S, 24S 1.219 HSG C 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 HSG D 8.581 Other 14S 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 3.469 1.174 0.279 0.000 0.000 4.922 >75% Grass cover, Good 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.581 8.581 Modified CN 14S 7.743 3.558 0.940 0.000 0.000 12.241 Paved parking 1S, 22S, 24S 11.212 4.732 1.219 0.000 8.581 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 3P 270.32 269.00 150.0 0.0088 0.010 15.0 0.0 0.0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-275.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 27501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=8.581 ac 71.32% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.26"Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=2.87 cfs 0.902 af Runoff Area=8.581 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.65"Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 Runoff=5.78 cfs 1.181 af Runoff Area=4.268 ac 78.77% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.39"Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=1.64 cfs 0.494 af Runoff Area=4.314 ac 63.95% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.13"Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ Runoff=3.07 cfs 0.408 af Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af Inflow=1.64 cfs 0.494 afPond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Primary=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf Inflow=2.87 cfs 0.902 afPond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf Inflow=5.78 cfs 1.181 afPond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Inflow=3.13 cfs 0.902 afPond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Primary=3.13 cfs 0.902 af Total Runoff Area = 25.744 ac Runoff Volume = 2.986 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.39" 52.45% Pervious = 13.503 ac 47.55% Impervious = 12.241 ac NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 1.735 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.139 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.871 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8.581 Weighted Average 2.461 28.68% Pervious Area 6.120 71.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 154.2 1,605 0.0007 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=0.902 af Runoff Depth=1.26" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ 2.87 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description * 8.581 97 Modified CN 8.581 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 85.3 1,605 0.0007 0.31 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=1.181 af Runoff Depth=1.65" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 5.78 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.099 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2.892 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.268 Weighted Average 0.906 21.23% Pervious Area 3.362 78.77% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 146.2 1,496 0.0006 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 112' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.268 ac Runoff Volume=0.494 af Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ 1.64 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff = 3.07 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.927 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.980 98 Paved parking, HSG A 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.041 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 4.314 Weighted Average 1.555 36.05% Pervious Area 2.759 63.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 39.9 636 0.0031 0.27 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 579' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.314 ac Runoff Volume=0.408 af Runoff Depth=1.13" Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ 3.07 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Area = 4.268 ac, 78.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Outflow = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Atten= 20%, Lag= 47.0 min Primary = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 270.57' Surf.Area= 0.038 ac Storage= 0.009 af Peak Elev= 274.07' @ 14.60 hrs Surf.Area= 0.084 ac Storage= 0.232 af (0.223 af above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 686.5 min calculated for 0.486 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 657.2 min ( 1,553.5 - 896.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 270.34' 0.504 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 270.34 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.036 270.67 0.039 0.012 0.012 0.039 270.99 0.043 0.013 0.025 0.043 271.32 0.046 0.015 0.040 0.047 271.65 0.050 0.016 0.056 0.051 271.98 0.054 0.017 0.073 0.055 272.31 0.059 0.019 0.092 0.060 272.63 0.064 0.020 0.111 0.065 272.96 0.068 0.022 0.133 0.070 273.29 0.075 0.024 0.157 0.077 276.90 0.119 0.347 0.504 0.125 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.32'15.0" Round Culvert L= 150.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 270.32' / 269.00' S= 0.0088 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 270.57'1.5" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 273.90'64.0" W x 3.5" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 1 274.90'26.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #5 Secondary 274.90'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 2.00 Width (feet) 4.00 20.00 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=1.30 cfs @ 14.60 hrs HW=274.07' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.30 cfs of 8.25 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 8.93 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.19 cfs @ 1.32 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=270.57' (Free Discharge) 5=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=4.268 ac Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af 1.64 cfs 1.31 cfs 1.31 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Outflow = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af, Atten= 45%, Lag= 87.3 min Primary = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.73' @ 15.33 hrs Surf.Area= 11,784 sf Storage= 23,178 cf (22,268 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,488.8 min calculated for 0.893 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,433.5 min ( 2,338.2 - 904.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.56 cfs @ 15.33 hrs HW=275.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.84 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.44 cfs @ 1.18 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf 2.87 cfs 1.58 cfs 1.58 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.65" for 1-Year event Inflow = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af Outflow = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af, Atten= 24%, Lag= 31.2 min Primary = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.87' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 11,931 sf Storage= 24,323 cf (23,414 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,142.0 min calculated for 1.172 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,107.0 min ( 1,956.3 - 849.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=4.35 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=275.87' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.99 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 4.23 cfs @ 1.69 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf 5.78 cfs 4.37 cfs 4.37 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 8.582 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Primary = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.582 ac 3.13 cfs 3.13 cfs Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 201.11 Clearing and Grubbing, Including Individual Trees and Stumps 0.22 ACRE $60,000 $13,200 203.15 Common Excavation 1,300 CY $30 $39,000 203.20 Muck Excavation 530 CY $30 $16,000 203.30 Earth Borrow Fill (allowance)360 CY $30 $10,800 204.20 Trench Excavation of Earth 320 CY $30 $9,600 301.15 Subbase of Gravel (pipe bedding)50 CY $35 $1,800 301.25 Subbase of Crushed Gravel, Coarse Graded (drive) 70 CY $45 $3,200 541.25 Class B Concrete (for concrete footers) 1.3 CY $500 $700 613.10 Stone Fill, Type I (Hydraulic Inlet and Collars) 5 CY $50 $300 622.10 Insulation Board 0.98 MFBM $1,200 $1,200 649.31 Geotextile Under Stone Fill, Type II 160 SY $4 $700 649.41 Geotextile Under Underdrain (under gravel layer) 560 SY $4 $2,300 649.515 Geotextile for Silt Fence, Woven Wire Reinforced 170 SY $10 $1,700 651.15 Seed (Outside Wetland)22 LB $50 $1,100 651.29 Straw mulch 0.9 TON $500 $500 651.35 Topsoil (4" topsoil on side slopes and outside wetland) 252 CY $40 $10,100 652.10 Erosion Protection & Sediment Control Plan 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 652.30 Maintenance of EPSC Plan (N.A.B.I.) 1 LU $2,000 $2,000 653.20 Temporary Erosion Matting 650 SY $2 $1,300 653.35 Vehicle Tracking Pad 60 CY $50 $3,000 653.42 Filter Bag 2 EACH $500 $1,000 653.50 Barrier Fence - temporary construction 100 LF $25 $2,500 656.20 Evergreen Trees (White Pine, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 9 EACH $175 $1,600 656.20 Evergreen Trees (Canandian, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 10 EACH $175 $1,800 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Silver Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 2 EACH $250 $500 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Red Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 5 EACH $250 $1,300 656.35 Deciduous Shrubs (Redosier Dogwood) 100 EACH $75 $7,500 656.80 Lanscaping Backfill, Truck Measurement 70 CY $60 $4,200 900.608 Wetland Soil 4 140 CY $50 $7,000 900.608 3/4" gravel (26" thick in cell 1, 24" thick in cell 2) 280 CY $35 $9,800 900.608 Pea Stone - Choker Layer - 3/8" stone (3") 40 CY $50 $2,000 900.61 9" Stone Fill, (swale and spillways)90 CY $65 $5,900 900.620 24" HDPE Risers 4 EACH $2,500 $10,000 900.620 Flared End Section 2 EACH $300 $600 900.620 Seepage Collars 7 EACH $300 $2,100 900.620 Catch Basin - 4' Diameter 2 EACH $5,000 $10,000 900.620 Beehive Grate 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.620 Removable Trash Rack 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.640 24" HDPE Pipe 110 LF $65 $7,200 900.640 8" HDPE Perforated Pipe 80 LF $35 $2,800 900.640 8" HDPE Pipe 62 LF $30 $1,900 900.640 Magnetic Locating Tape 100 LF $2 $200 900.645 Wetland Seed - Marsh/Swamp/Bog Mix 8 LB $100 $800 900.645 Wetland Seed - Detention Basin Mix 5 LB $100 $500 900.690 Dewatering 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal 1 $227,700 635.11 Mobilization/Demobilization (5%)$11,400 900.645 Bonds & Insurance (2%)$4,600 Subtotal $243,700 Construction Contigency (14%)$33,300 $277,000 Total Cost Construction Construction Subtotal VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 Total Cost Construction VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Ponds Retrofit Study (1/6 of total) 1 LS $5,050 $5,050 Soil Borings and Testing 1 LS $8,400 $8,400 Wetland Delineation (1/3 of total)1 LS $400 $400 Survey (1/4 of total)1 LS $2,810 $2,810 Final Design Engineering (1/3 of total) 1 LS $16,833 $16,833 Permitting 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $38,493 Bid and Construction Phase Engineering 2 $38,000 $38,000 Administrative 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Easement Assistance 1 LS $0 $0 Legal 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $359,493 $360,000 Acreage of Contributing Watershed Treated 7.12 Retrofit Cost per Acre Treated $50,562 Notes: 1.) Construction cost quantities include Contractor's 15% Overhead and Profit. 3.) Project costs are in 2018 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index for February 2018 = 10889.17. 4.) Assumes that hydric soils onsite can be reused for gravel wetland soil. Cost is to stockpile, test, and place. USE 2.)Bid and construction phase engineering is calculated as per the State of Vermont Pacilities Engineering Division Engineering Fee Allowance Guidance Document, effective September 1, 2011. Actual bid and construction services cost may vary based on final arrangement of bid package and Owner's construction services to be provided. Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Subtotal Other Costs Other Costs Subtotal TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Engineering Engineering Subtotal i Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis Revised Document: March 2010 (Original Document: December 2008) Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 BMP Performance Curve: Infiltration Basin 153 BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 154 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Gravel Wetland Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 48% 61% 82% 91% 95% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Commercial Zn 57% 68% 83% 88% 90% 90% 91% 92%TSS 47% 61% 82% 91% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 27% 42% 51% 58% 61% 65% 66%Industrial Zn 40% 54% 74% 84% 88% 90% 90% 91%TSS 47% 62% 82% 92% 96% 98% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%High-Density Residential Zn 46% 59% 78% 86% 89% 90% 91% 91%TSS 53% 68% 86% 94% 97% 98% 99% 99%TP 20% 27% 42% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Medium-Density Residential Zn 21% 32% 52% 67% 76% 82% 89% 91%TSS 51% 65% 83% 92% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 21% 28% 42% 51% 57% 61% 64% 66%Low-Density Residential Zn 16% 26% 46% 61% 71% 78% 87% 90% Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 174 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond 175 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Wet Pond Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 30% 44% 60% 68% 74% 77% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Commercial Zn 59% 71% 80% 85% 87% 89% 92% 93%TSS 30% 45% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Industrial Zn 50% 64% 77% 82% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 30% 44% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%High-Density Residential Zn 53% 71% 78% 83% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 34% 48% 62% 70% 75% 78% 84% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Medium-Density Residential Zn 33% 49% 65% 73% 78% 82% 87% 90%TSS 33% 47% 61% 69% 74% 78% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Low-Density Residential Zn 28% 43% 60% 69% 75% 79% 85% 89%Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 Kennedy Drive Pond 3South Burlington, VermontSimple Method for Pollutant LoadingsSimple Method - Phosphorous LoadingNo STP Existing Detention Pond Existing UntreatedProposed Upgraded Gravel WetlandPhosphorous Reduction (lbs/yr)Annual Load = (0.226 (P * Pj * Rv) * C * A) * T 16.377.327.446.388.38Where:0.226 =Simple Method CoefficientP =Yearly rainfall depth (inches)Pj =Fraction of rainfall events producing runoff (0.90)Rv =0.05 + 0.009 * (% site imperviousness (Ia)) 0.690.760.630.69C =Flow weighted mean concentration of pollutant (mg/L)A =Area of contributing watershed (acres)8.584.274.318.58T= Treatment Removal Rate (%)1,20 0.18 0 0.61Ia=Impervious Area (acres)6.123.362.766.12P =33.9National Climate Data CenterPj =0.9Coefficient = 0.226Table 1: Pollutant Concentration Values ( C )TSS TP NO3 Cu Zn(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)Cropland 145 0.56 4.06 0.0015 0.016Forest 51 0.11 0.80 0 0Industrial 149 0.32 1.89 0.058 0.671Meadow 51 0.80 0.11 0 0Open 51 0.80 0.11 0 070 0.55 1.83 0.047 0.176142 0.40 0.76 0.054 0.3291. EPA BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland, Land Use: Commercial http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/Guidance/152005.pdfTransportationSources:https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf2. Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Urban Stormwater Retrofit Projects https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/Final_CBP_Approved_Expert_Panel_Report_on_Stormwater_Retrofits--_long.pdf3. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Special Condition Guidance, Appendix V.D - BMP Enhancement, Conversion, and Restoration (05/18/2015)December 18, 2018LandUseResidential 1 Dave Wheeler From:Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:33 AM To:Claudon, Lynnette; Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. Cc:Reilly, John D.; Dave Wheeler; Tom Dipietro Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin: All set with me also. Roger Bergeron Chief Construction Engineer Phone: 802-760-8135 E-mail: roger.bergeron@vermont.gov Department of Environmental Conservation FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION National Life Building MAIN 1 1 National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05620-3510 Construction website: http://dec.vermont.gov/facilities-engineering/water-financing/srf/srfstep3 “National Life Building requires a security access badge. Please make arrangements before visiting and allow extra time” Note: Emails to and from state employees, regarding state business, are public records. From: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:36 PM To: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin, I got them. All set with me. ~Lynnette From: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:27 PM To: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval 2 Lynnette and Roger, I have finished incorporating your review comments on the 100% submission. Attached please find the final design drawings and specifications for the Kennedy Drive Pond 3 project for approval to bid. Please let me know if you have any questions and confirm receipt of attachments. Thank you, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Associate Licensed in VT Responsive. Consistent. Competent.™ 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331, ext 324 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com Our vision is to provide innovative, collaborative and sustainable engineering and planning solutions to the challenges our clients face, while enhancing the communities in which we work and live. We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards while maintaining integrity and respect within our professional relationships. We continue to build a corporate culture that honors and values the individuality and strengths of our team members and our clients. This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com the presumption of significance and is presumed Class II. Thank you, Kirstin From: Heath, Tina [mailto:Tina.Heath@vermont.gov] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:07 PM To: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study Hi all, Thank you for meeting with me last week on October 17 to review the seven stormwater ponds along Kennedy Drive. And thanks for digging up the wetlands permit for the Kennedy Drive expansion. Unfortunately I can’t find any paper files here at my office and it’s tough to determine what’s what in the CUD/ site plans. Does the City have a copy of the original application? Five existing ponds are proposed for retrofit and expansion upgrades to satisfy the Potash Brook FRP and capture additional off‐site runoff. Below is a jurisdictional summary of each pond we visited. The ponds correspond to the site maps we had at the visit. Pond 1: The proposal is to significantly expand the pond towards the west. There are mapped wetlands nearby associated with Potash Brook, and a wetland swale/finger that extends from this complex towards the road where there’s a culvert. This swale would also be considered Class II because it’s contiguous to the larger complex. The expansion would likely impact wetland and buffer and would be difficult to approve with a permit. Alternative sites and designs will need to looked in to that could avoid wetland and buffer impact. Pond 2: The existing pond is located adjacent to mapped Class II wetlands, and it appears that a berm may separate the two. The proposal is to expand the pond in the opposite direction of the wetlands and retrofit a gravel wetland. Because of how close the pond is to the wetlands it is necessary to determine if this pond was originally constructed in upland or wetland. This will give us a sense of where the actual wetland boundary and 50 foot buffer zone is located for delineation purposes. Depending on the boundary, the expansion would either require a permit or be outside of wetland jurisdiction. And in general, if retrofit upgrades like a gravel wetland can be installed within the existing footprint of the pond infrastructure then these types of projects are considered an allowed use. Pond 3: The existing pond sits on a terrace above the large mapped wetland complex. Upgrade proposals are to expand the existing pond and create a new swale to redirect the culvert outflow to the pond. The wetlands should be delineated to determine how much of the proposal is within the 50‐foot buffer zone. There are no significant concerns with this proposal at this time. Pond 4: Upgrades proposed include the expansion of the pond to the southeast. There is an unnamed stream that flows around the perimeter of the existing pond. There is a wetland associated with the stream and is Class II based on presumptions. Expanding into this wetland and buffer would unlikely be permitted, and alternatives would need to be looked into. Pond 5 and Pond 6: no changes to pond 5, abandoning pond 6. Pond 7: This pond is proposed to be expanded, mapped Class II wetlands are nearby. Wetlands would need to be delineated, current proposal would likely impact buffer. The expansion should be reconfigured to minimize impacts as much as possible. Based on discussions at the site visit there’s possibility the expansion could be reconfigured to avoid the buffer zone. Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Best, Best, Tina Tina Heath, District Wetland Ecologist Chittenden County 802‐490‐6202 tina.heath@vermont.gov Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 111 West St Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov See what we’re up to on our Blog, Flow. From: Dipietro‐Worden, Kirstin A. [mailto:kworden@hoyletanner.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:05 PM To: April Moulaert <april@northwoodsecological.com>; Heath, Tina <Tina.Heath@vermont.gov> Cc: Schramm, Mike <mschramm@hoyletanner.com>; Kerrie Garvey <kerrie@watershedca.com>; Dave Wheeler (dwheeler@sburl.com) <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Andres Torizzo <andres@watershedca.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive Ponds Expansion Study April and Tina, I preparation of next week’s site visits, I wanted to forward updated maps prepared by WCA showing the expansion concepts for each of the Kennedy Drive ponds. The attached maps represent the most recent updates to existing and proposed drainage areas, existing and proposed pond footprints, and proposed drainage connection concepts. Let us know if you have any questions. Also, I plan to attend next Tuesday’s (10/17) site visits to answer any engineering related questions about the proposed concepts. Please let me know where to meet you and if we are still planning on a 10:45 am start. Thanks, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Environmental Engineer Licensed in: VT 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. No X No X X No X Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pound 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope %: 5 VT Sampling Point: Up April Moualert, PWS Section, Township, Range: Hinesburg fine sandy loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15"N Long: 73° 10'14"W Datum: significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Up Tree Stratum 30 ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Quercus rubra 40 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU 3 (A) Acer rubrum 10 No FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% Acer saccharum 30 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Yes FAC FAC species 40 120 0 0 Total % Cover of: 0 Acer rubrum Fraxinus americana 5 No FACU UPL species 0 0 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACU species 130 80 =Total Cover 640 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.76 Tilia americana 5 No FACU 170 (A) 15 )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 0 520 60 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Maianthemum canadense 20 Yes FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.30 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X SOIL Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 4-12 10YR 4/3 Loamy/Clayey Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy100 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Yes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. X No X No X X No x x x x x X x x x Yes X Remarks: No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Enosburg and Whately soils PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR R 44° 27'15" N Long: 73° 10' 14"W Datum: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Kennedy Drive- Pond 3 City/County: South Burlington/ Chittenden Sampling Date: 6/8/18 Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope %: 0 VT Sampling Point: Wet April Moulaert, PWS Section, Township, Range: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.(A/B) 7. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 = 1.x 2 = 2.x 3 = 3.x 4 = 4.x 5 = 5.Column Totals:(B) 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size:X 1.X 2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.X Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.100 =Total Cover Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Woody Vine Stratum )Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 )2 - Dominance Test is >50% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Phragmites australis 90 Yes FACW 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Typha angustifolia 10 No =Total Cover 190 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.90 100 (A) )OBL species Multiply by: FACW species 90 0 UPL species 0 0 FACU species 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: FAC species 0 0 10 10 Total % Cover of: 180 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Wet Tree Stratum ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: X x XYes No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21) Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) 0-1 10YR 2/1 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L) Mucky Loam/Clay Loc2 Texture Remarks Mucky Loam/Clay SOIL Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 1-12 10YR 4/1 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC125 COLLEGE STREET, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401WATERSHED CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, LLC430 SHELBURNE ROAD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05406VERMONT SURVEY AND ENGINEERING, INC.79 RIVER STREET, SUITE 201, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602APRIL 2018PREPARED BY:125 COLLEGE STREET - 4TH FLOORBURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTKENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER PONDSWETLAND BUFFER IMPACTSDRAFTSUBMITTALREVIEWI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 G-00.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:25 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVEDNOTE:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-1P3-12KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:29 PM, 1:2 DDDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-2P3-23KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:36 PM, 1:2 DKENNEDY DRIVENOTES:SITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P3-3P3-34KENNEDY DRIVE POND 3 LANDSCAPING PLAN PLANT TABLESYMBOLCOMMON NAMELEGEND:I:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P3-3.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:43 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVENOTE:8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-1P5-15KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:48 PM, 1:2 KENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P5-2P5-26KENNEDY DRIVE POND 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND:EXISTINGSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P5-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:14:54 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVE8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-1P6-17KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 EXISTING SITE PLANSITE PLANI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-1.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:01 PM, 1:2 DDKENNEDY DRIVESITE PLAN8KENNEDY DRIVE STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 107873 c DRAFT107873 P6-2P6-28KENNEDY DRIVE POND 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN LEGEND:SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDI:\107873 - Kennedy Drive Pond\2-CADD\Exhibits\BUFFER IMPACTS\107873 P6-2.dwg, 5/1/2018 3:15:07 PM, 1:2 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources Watershed Management Division One National Life Drive, Main Bldg., 2nd Floor [phone] 802-828-1535 Montpelier, VT 05620 [fax] 802-828-1544 To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health, for the benefit of this and future generations. NOTICE OF DRAFT WETLAND GENERAL PERMIT #3-9026 The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources is issuing a draft Wetland General Permit for public comment pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §905b and §9.7 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR). The General Permit is for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted within Class II wetlands and associated buffer zones. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. Project proponents may self-verify coverage and must register the activity with the Vermont Wetlands Program, except for farm practices described in the permit. The specific water quality improvement projects include stream crossing structure replacement, failed wastewater system replacement, retrofits for Stormwater treatment practices, and Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Services Conservation Practice Standards on farms for access roads, heavy use protection areas, stream crossings, trails and walkways, and artificial wetlands. The NRCS Practice Standards can be found at: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VT/TABLE_OF_CONSERVATION_PRACTICES.pdf. The Secretary is issuing a General Permit in order to more effectively and efficiently regulate and protect Vermont’s significant wetlands. The Secretary reserves the right to require an individual permit or different general permit if deemed necessary to protect wetlands. Although individuals may self-verify their project’s eligibility, Wetlands Program Staff are available to consult. This consultation is particularly helpful for determining if the wetland is a bog, fen, or vernal pool which would need to be avoided for permit coverage. This General Permit does not supersede any existing Vermont Wetland Rule exemptions or allowed uses. Below is a list of activities which would not be eligible for this proposed general permit because the activities do not need any permit for the activities: Food and Crop Area Exemption: wetland areas used to grow food or crops in connection with farming activities that have been in ordinary rotation since February 23, 1990 are excluded from regulation under the VWR. From February 23, 1990 to present, all new farming activities within significant wetlands or their buffer zones fall under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This exclusion expires when the area is no longer used to grow food or crops, or is no longer in ordinary rotation. When the exclusion expires, the area may then be considered a Class II wetland, and therefore will then also be subject to the 50 foot buffer zone again. For example, this exemption expires whenever a pasture or hayfield wetland will be turned into a walkway or access road because the structure is not growing food or crop. Allowed Use §6.12 The maintenance, reconstruction, or routine repair of structures and facilities (including ski trails, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings) in compliance with the Vermont Wetland Rules in existence as of the date of their construction or in existence as of February 23, 1990 or additions to such structures or facilities which do not involve substantial expansion or modification in a wetland or buffer. Allowed Use §6.13 Emergency repair, cleanup, or maintenance of structures and facilities (including utility poles and lines, public transportation facilities, bulkheads, docks, piers, pilings, paved areas, houses, or other buildings), or emergency actions required to provide for public health, safety and welfare for disaster relief in connection with a federal or state-designated disaster. Complete copies of the draft permit can be obtained by writing to the address below, or by clicking on the following link: https://enb.vermont.gov/ Any person may file comments in writing on the draft Wetland General Permit through May 9, 2018 with: 1 STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WETLANDS GENERAL PERMIT 3-9026 Water Quality Improvement Projects in Significant Wetlands and Buffers I. Purpose The Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Secretary) hereby issues this general permit pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 905b and §§ 9.8 and 9.9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR) (effective April 1, 2017), for the purpose of expediting the permitting process for certain specified water quality improvement projects conducted in significant wetlands and their buffer zones. II. Findings Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 913 and Section 9 of the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR), any activity in a Class II wetland or its associated buffer zone is prohibited unless it is an allowed use, or it is authorized by a permit, conditional use determination, or order issued by the Secretary. Pursuant to Section 9.8 of the VWR, the Secretary may issue general permits authorizing discrete categories of activities or uses in discrete categories of Class II wetlands. The Secretary may, at his or her discretion, issue a nonreporting general permit (VWR § 9.9(g)). Activities and uses eligible for authorization under a general permit must be found to comply with the VWR and have no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the impacted wetland. This finding must be based on an evaluation of both the direct and immediate effects of the proposed activity on the wetland, as well as the cumulative or ongoing effects of the activity on the wetland. Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit are limited to specific practices that are intended to improve water quality either by mitigating known pollution sources, or by reducing flood hazards. Eligible activities are limited by square footage thresholds, and by the type of impacted wetland. If eligible projects are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, there will be minimal or no alteration of the physical and vegetative wetland characteristics that provide the following functions: water storage for flood water and storm runoff (VWR §5.1), surface and groundwater protection (§5.2), fisheries habitat (§5.3), wildlife and migratory bird habitat (§5.4), and erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil (§5.10). Potential impacts to exemplary wetland natural communities (§5.5), and threatened and endangered species habitat (§5.6), are limited through the Limitations on Coverage in Part V of this general permit. Given the limited nature of the activities eligible for coverage under this general permit, no potential impacts are predicted for education and research in natural science (§5.7), recreational value and economic benefits (§5.8), and open space and aesthetics (§5.9). Based on the factors described above, if an eligible project is conducted in accordance with the terms and 2 conditions of this general permit, The Secretary has determined that the activity will comply with the Vermont Wetland Rules and will not result in undue adverse impacts to wetland functions and values. In determining whether coverage under this general permit should be granted, the Secretary has evaluated the potential effect of the eligible activities on the basis of both their direct and immediate effects as well as on the basis of any cumulative or on-going effects. III. Definitions a. Managed Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that have been managed and maintained, including mowed lawns, mowed road shoulders, parking areas, roads, hayfields, managed pasture, and croplands. This category does not include managed forest or land that has been allowed to lay fallow for three or more years. The clearing of woody vegetation from a natural wetland to create a managed wetland requires a wetlands permit. b. Natural Areas means Class II wetland and buffer areas that are naturally vegetated and that have not been managed or have been minimally managed. This category includes forested swamps, shrub swamps, marshes, thickets, and areas managed for silviculture. c. Practice means any activity eligible for coverage under this general permit. d. Project means a plan proposed by a person that includes the construction of one or more practices eligible for coverage under this general permit. A project shall specify the location and design of the practices that will be constructed, as well as the timeframe within which construction shall take place. For STP projects described in subpart (b) below, the retrofits for a parcel or specified development are considered a single project. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this permit. A person shall not intentionally subdivide the components of a project in order to qualify for coverage under this general permit. IV. Activities Eligible for Coverage Under this General Permit Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit include certain water quality improvement projects on farms, certain retrofit stormwater treatment projects, and replacement of stream crossing structures and failed wastewater treatment systems. To be eligible for coverage under this general permit, an activity must meet the conditions and criteria listed in subparts a), b), c), or d) of this part, as well as the General Conditions listed in Part VI. Permitting thresholds for activities are based on whether the proposed activity takes place in a “managed” or “natural” wetland. a. Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms. The Secretary has determined that certain water quality improvement practices, when conducted according to the standards listed below, result in reduced impact to significant wetlands, and a net reduction in pollutant loading to waters of the state. When conducted on land that is actively used for farming activities as defined in Section 3 3.1(a) of the Vermont Wetland Rules, the activities listed below may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed without notification to the Secretary. To be eligible for non-reporting coverage, project activities must comply with the impact thresholds identified below, and must be conducted in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standards for Vermont, specified below. The activities eligible for non-reporting coverage are as follows: i. Construction of Stream Crossings and Trails and Walkways: 1. Construction of Stream Crossings, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #578. Individual stream crossings shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Construction of Trails and Walkways, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #575. Individual trails and walkways shall impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. ii. Other Water Quality Improvement Projects on Farms: Construction of the following practices shall be subject to the impact thresholds identified below. Construction of more than one the following practices shall cumulatively result in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to any wetland or buffer, as specified below: 1. Construction of access roads, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard and Implementation Requirements #560, impacts no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, or 5,000 square feet of managed wetland or buffer, resulting in impacts of no more than 5,000 square feet total to managed or natural wetland and buffer. 2. Designation and Construction of a Heavy Use Protection Area, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #561, impacting no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetland. 3. Construction of artificial wetlands, in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard #656, provided that the constructed wetland is built in a managed buffer, and does not impact more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, with no impacts to natural or managed wetlands. b. Retrofit of Stormwater Treatment Practices. The Secretary has determined that the installation of certain Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs) to address existing impervious surface is a critical step in implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in stormwater impaired watersheds, Lake Champlain, and Lake Memphremagog. Additionally, existing sites with three or more acres of 4 impervious surface will require installation of STPs in order to meet the requirements of the forthcoming stormwater developed lands general permit, which is critical for meeting the Lake Champlain TMDL. The retrofit of stormwater infrastructure with STPs can result in improved water quality in these watersheds. Unless otherwise specified in this general permit, projects retrofitting existing impervious surfaces with stormwater STPs according to the terms of a validly-issued operational stormwater permit, authorization under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit, or Municipal Roads General Permit, may be eligible for coverage under this general permit, and may proceed with construction following registration of the project. To be eligible for coverage, projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Installation of STPs, including installation of multiple STPs that are part of a single retrofit project, must impact no more than 500 square feet of natural wetland or buffer, no more than 2,000 square feet of managed wetland, and no more than 5,000 square feet of managed buffer, resulting in no more than 5,000 total square feet of impact to any wetland or buffer. ii. Permittees must register the location and type of STPs to be constructed prior to commencing construction. c. Stream crossing structure replacement for Public Safety, Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), or for Flood Resiliency Improvements. The Secretary has determined that certain impacts associated with stream crossing structure replacements that do not qualify as allowed uses under VWR § 6.12 are necessary to improve public safety, aquatic organism passage design, and improvements to stream flow and flood capacity. The allowed use in Section 6.12 of the VWR allows for the maintenance, reconstruction or routine repair of structures and facilities, if there is not substantial expansion beyond the existing footprint of the structure or additional impacts are not required to access the structure. But expansion of a crossing structure is often necessary to improve AOP and flood resiliency. Furthermore, temporary access to make improvements or to allow for continued public use of the road is often necessary to implement the replacement. In order to be eligible for coverage under this general permit for activities outside of the footprint of an existing structure, replacements must obtain authorization from one of the following under the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Stream Alteration General Permit: E. General Permit Coverage for Emergency Protective Measures, or F. General Permit Coverage of Next-Flood Protective Measures. To be eligible for coverage impact totals from the complete project shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. Projects must comply with the following conditions: i. Expansion of the existing structure (expansion of culvert length, installation of wing walls, replacement with wider structure etc.) shall not result in more than 1,000 square feet of impact in wetland or buffer zone. ii. Temporary reroutes to allow for public travel and temporary access for construction purposes shall not result in more than 5,000 square feet of impact to wetland and buffer zone. All impacted area shall be promptly 5 restored (return grade, seed, and mulch) upon the completion of the project, and shall be in place no longer than 12 months. Where temporary reroutes are necessary over forested wetland and buffer, stumps shall remain in place. d. Replacement of Failed Wastewater Systems in Managed Buffer Zones. The Secretary has determined that the prompt replacement of failed wastewater systems is necessary to abate health and environmental hazards associated with the discharge of contaminated water and sewage. To be eligible for coverage under this permit, there must be an immediate and ongoing health or environmental hazard associated with the failed system, the building structure serviced by the failed system in question must be occupied, and the system must still be in use at the time of failure. Projects must also meet the following criteria, and impacts from the new system installation shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of impact to managed buffer zone (eg lawn or other maintained buffer): i. There is no alternative location outside the wetland buffer that is reasonably available to the landowner that is adequately suited for wastewater disposal, including existing easements on adjoining property; ii. The new system will comply with the Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules including the variance section for “best fix.” V. Obtaining Authorization a. Non-reporting Coverage: Individuals conducting water quality improvement projects on farms, pursuant to Part III(a) of this general permit, may proceed without application or notification to the Agency, provided that the project will meet the terms and conditions of this general permit. b. Registration of Project: For all other eligible projects, pursuant to Part III(b), (c), and (d) of this general permit, may proceed without application for coverage, but must register the project on the Agency’s website prior to beginning construction. Registration must include the title of the entity conducting the activity, the location of the activity, and a description of the activity. VI. Limitations on coverage The following activities are not eligible for coverage under this general permit: a. Activities that are allowed uses under §6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. b. Activities within 50 feet of wetland areas used to grow food or crops that fall under the Farming Exemption in Section 3.1 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. Activities in these areas do not require permit coverage. c. Activities within a Class I wetland or buffer zone. d. Water quality improvement projects impacting more than the allowable square footage for each wetland and buffer type, and eligible activity. 6 e. Water quality improvement projects identified in Part III(2)(a) on land that is not actively used for farming activities. A property is considered to be actively used for farming when farming activities are continuously conducted on the property. f. Activities affecting wetlands significant for the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE) Species Habitat function pursuant to §5.6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory. g. Activities located in or adjacent to (within 50 feet of) bogs, fens, or vernal pools. Bogs, fens, and vernal pools are identified on the ANR Atlas, which is found at: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/WetlandProjects/default.html. The Wetlands Program may be contacted to verify if a wetland is one of these types of wetlands. h. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands that are significant for the Exemplary Wetland Natural Community function pursuant to §5.5 of the Vermont Wetland Rules. This limitation may be waived if the applicant has received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Inventory Program. i. Activities in or adjacent (within 50 feet) to wetlands at or above 2,500 feet in elevation (headwaters wetlands). j. Unpermitted as-built projects that required a permit and did not obtain one in violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules. k. With the exception of stream crossings and trails and walkways as defined in Part IV(a)(i) of this general permit, activities that are components of a single project or planned phases of a multiphase project, where the entire project exceeds the eligibility thresholds in Part IV of this general permit, are not eligible for coverage. A Flow Restoration Plan may consist of multiple projects and shall not be considered a single project for the purposes of this general permit. VII. Relation to Other Permits Activities eligible for coverage under this general permit may also require a permit pursuant to other local, state, and federal laws, including a federal wetlands permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Applicants are responsible for determining if any such permits apply to their proposed activities and obtaining any such permits. VIII. Required Best Management Practices a. Best Management Practices Applicable to All Eligible Projects: i. Steps shall be taken to prevent the transport of sediment into any wetland or other surface water and to promote re-vegetation following the completion of work: 1. If a construction stormwater permit is required (i.e. over an acre of soil disturbance), the permittee shall follow the terms and conditions of that permit. Otherwise, the permittee shall utilize recommended sediment and erosion controls as needed and as described in the Vermont Department of Environmental 7 Conservation's Low Risk Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control, or other equivalent controls as approved by the Agency. 2. All sediment controls and construction fencing shall be installed prior to beginning any earthwork for the project and removed following the successful establishment of vegetation. 3. Disturbed soils shall be seeded and mulched within 48 hours of final grading. Appropriate wetland seed mixes shall be used within wetlands. Appropriate erosion control/conservation seed mixes shall be used within buffers. All areas shall be stabilized within wetlands and buffer zones and mulched with straw or weed-free hay to limit the spread of invasive species. ii. If the impact is temporary in nature, stockpiling of material shall be done on filter fabric or equivalent in the wetland and buffer zone. Temporarily removed wetland soils shall be put back in place in the reverse order that they were removed and restored to their prior condition to match the original soil profile. iii. Removed and stockpiled materials shall be located outside of wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters, and appropriate erosion controls measures as described above shall be used. iv. Impacts from equipment access to the project site shall be limited by utilizing existing or low impact routes using the following sequence of options listed in order of preference: 1. Access should be limited to upland areas or existing maintained roads to the extent practicable; 2. Access on other existing primitive roads or existing managed areas (as defined in Section III(1)a) in wetlands or buffer zones; 3. Where existing roads are not an option for access, minimize rutting and earth disturbing activities by: 4. Accessing wetland areas with mats or under frozen or dry conditions. Winter construction under frozen conditions may minimize ground disturbance and reduce impacts to wildlife; 5. Delineating the limits of disturbance using a combination of silt fence, flagging, and/or snow fence; 6. Using low-ground pressure or track vehicles in wetlands to minimize compaction and rutting; 7. Minimizing equipment use in wetlands and limiting vehicle trips; and 8. Restoring the project site in order to reverse soil compaction and stabilize the soil on the site, and replanting the site if vegetation has been destroyed. v. Waste disposal and equipment refueling shall be limited to areas outside wetlands and buffer zones and at least 50 feet from surface waters. vi. Final earthwork shall return wetlands and buffer zones to the original grade. 8 vii. The potential for the introduction and spread of invasive species in wetlands and buffer zones shall be decreased by using the following methods: 1. All equipment shall be cleaned so as to contain no observable soil or vegetation prior to work in wetlands and buffer zones to prevent the spread of invasive species; 2. If removed material contains invasive species, care should be taken to dispose of the material in a manner that does not spread the invasive species to new areas b. Activity-Specific Best Management Practices: i. Installation of underground facilities in wetlands or buffer zones: 1. Trenches shall be filled, mulched, and seeded immediately or upon final inspection of the line; 2. If a directional bore is required, the depth of the bore beneath the wetland shall not puncture a confining layer essential to maintain wetland hydrology; 3. If drilling or boring is required, drilling fluid shall be composed of bentonite clay, clean water, and Agency approved additives (e.g., "environmentally safe" drill soap or polymers). ii. Activities in surface water body margins: 1. Soil and vegetation disturbance shall be minimized to avoid unnecessary impacts to waterbodies: a. Avoid removing vegetation until just before beginning construction that disturbs the soil; b. Minimize the area of bare soil within the approved work zone as much as possible; c. Maintain as much of a naturally vegetated buffer as possible around wetlands and surface waters to slow runoff and trap sediments; d. Phase construction to minimize the extent of soils disturbed simultaneously; and e. Dredged material shall be properly disposed of and dewatering of dredged material must take place such that a turbid discharge to waters of the State does not occur; IX. General Conditions a. All activities shall be completed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this general permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 37 and may be cause for an enforcement action or revocation and reissuance, modification, or termination of the permittee's authorization under this general permit. b. For projects requiring registration, the permittee shall register their project with the Vermont Wetlands Program prior to the start of construction. 9 c. Activities must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, both temporary and permanent, to wetlands, buffers and wetland functions and values to the maximum extent practicable at the project site. Consideration of mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, or restoring) is required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to protected wetland function and value are no more than minimal. For NRCS practices, consideration of avoidance and minimization of impacts must be consistent with the Wetland Protection Policy required for all NRCS technical assistance and funding. d. Permittees must comply with the required best management practices listed in Section VII of this general permit. e. This permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to comply with any other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. f. The Agency maintains continuing jurisdiction over a project authorized under this general permit and may at any time order remedial measures if it appears likely that undue adverse impacts to protected wetland functions and values are or will occur. X. Appeals Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Division; and must be signed by the appellant or the appellant’s attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project, or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Division is: 32 Cherry St.; 2nd Floor, Suite 303; Burlington, VT 05401 (Tel. # 802-828-1660). XI. Effective Date and Permit Term This permit shall become effective upon signing and shall expire five years from the date of signing. State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Emily Boedecker, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: 10 Pete LaFlamme, Director Watershed Management Division ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 On May 18, 2018, City of South Burlington, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 filed application #4C1122-1 for a project generally described as retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. The District #4 Environmental Commission is reviewing this application under Act 250 Rule 51 -- Minor Applications. A copy of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the office listed below. The application and a draft permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (http://nrb.vermont.gov) by clicking on "Act 250 Database" and entering the project number “4C1122-1”. No hearing will be held and a permit may be issued unless, on or before June 15, 2018, a person notifies the Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the Commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request must be in writing to the address below, must state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. If you feel that any of the District Commission members listed on the attached Certificate of Service under “For Your Information” may have a conflict of interest, or if there is any other reason a member should be disqualified from sitting on this case, please contact the district coordinator as soon as possible, no later than prior to the response date listed above. The Applicant has requested a partial waiver of notice to adjoining landowners, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 10(F). The District Commission has granted the waiver request based on the determination that the adjoining landowners whose notice has been waived, reasonably could not be affected by the proposed project and that serving notice on all the adjoining landowners constitutes a significant administrative burden without corresponding public benefit. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by June 15, 2018. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, affected state agencies, and adjoining property owners and other persons to the extent they have a particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the 10 criteria. Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. Section 6085(c)(5). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 22nd day of May, 2018. By: /s/Stephanie H. Monaghan Stephanie H. Monaghan District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 802/879-5662 stephanie.monaghan@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.minor.notice.docx State of Vermont __________________________________________________________ LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT This is a PROPOSED permit; please submit any written comments to Stephanie H. Monaghan, 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 by June 15, 2018. A permit will NOT be issued until the District Commission receives and reviews the following information: 1. Construction General Permit issued by the ANR-DEC Watershed Management Division. CASE NO: 4C1122-1 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED City of South Burlington 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6093 (Act 250) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit Amendment #4C1122-1, pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6093. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Book 78, Page 164; and Book 681, Pages 394-453 of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of deeds to City of South Burlington; and Book 175, Pages 428-429, of the land records of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to Windridge Homeowners Association. This permit specifically authorizes the retrofit construction of three existing stormwater treatment ponds along Kennedy Drive - Ponds 3, 5, and 6. The Project is located along Kennedy Drive (Pond 3 – north side of Kennedy Drive, west of Manor Woods and Timberlane cross streets; Pond 5 – south side of Kennedy Drive and north of Windridge Court parking lot; and Pond 6 – on Kennedy Drive, east of Windridge Court drive) in South Burlington, Vermont. Jurisdiction attaches because the Project constitutes a material change to a permitted development or subdivision, and thus requires a permit amendment pursuant to Act 250 Rule 34. 1. The Permittee, and its assigns and successors in interest, is obligated by this permit to complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions. 2. The project shall be completed, operated and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this permit and the permit application, plans, and exhibits on file with the District Environmental Commission and other material representations. The approved plans are: Sheet G-0.1 - “General Notes, Legend and Drawing Index,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet G-0.2 - “General Notes,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Page 2 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 Sheet C-1.3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.5 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.6 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.7 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-1.8 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-2.4 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet C-3.3 - “Erosion Control Details,” dated April 6, 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P3-3 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P5-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan with Wetland Buffer Impacts,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-1 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Existing Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); Sheet P6-2 - “Kennedy Drive Pond 6 Proposed Site Plan,” dated April 2018 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-A,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); “Total Area Plan ROW-B,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ); and “Total Area Plan ROW-C,” dated 09-03-04 (Exhibit # ). 3. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4C1122 and amendments are in full force and effect except as further amended herein. 4. The Permittee shall comply with all of the conditions of the following Agency of Natural Resources Permit: a. Authorization of Notice of Intent # under Construction General Permit #3-9020 issued on (date) by the ANR Watershed Management Division 5. Any nonmaterial changes to the permit listed in the preceding condition shall be automatically incorporated herein upon issuance by the Agency of Natural Resources. Page 3 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 6. Representatives of the State of Vermont shall have access to the property covered by this permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this permit. 7. A copy of this permit and plans shall be on the site at all times throughout the construction process. 8. No change shall be made to the design, operation or use of this project without a permit amendment issued by the District Commission or a jurisdictional opinion from the District Coordinator that a permit is not required. 9. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8005(c), the District Commission may at any time require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the project is in compliance with the terms of this permit. 10. The conditions of this permit and the land uses permitted herein shall run with the land and are binding upon and enforceable against the Permittee and their successors and assigns. 11. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00AM to 5:00PM. 12. The Permittee shall apply and maintain water and/or other agents approved by the Watershed Management Division in the Project’s Erosion Prevention and Control Plan on all roadways or disturbed areas within the project during construction and until pavement and/or vegetation is fully established to control dust. 13. At a minimum, the Permittee shall comply with the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 14. The Permittee shall comply with Exhibits #001 and __ (Schedule B; and Erosion Control Details) for erosion prevention and sediment control. The Permittee shall prevent the transport of any sediment beyond that area necessary for construction approved herein. All erosion prevention and sediment control devices shall be periodically cleaned, replaced and maintained until vegetation is permanently established on all slopes and disturbed areas. 15. All mulch, siltation dams, water bars and other temporary devices shall be installed immediately upon grading and shall be maintained until all roads are permanently surfaced and all permanent vegetation is established on all slopes and disturbed areas. Topsoil stockpiles shall have the exposed earth completely mulched and have siltation checks around the base. 16. All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilization within 14 days of the initial disturbance. After this time, any disturbance in the area must be stabilized at the end of each work day. The following exceptions apply: i) Stabilization is not required if work is to continue in the area within the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours. ii) Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet or greater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches). 17. All disturbed areas of the site shall be stabilized, seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of final grading. All disturbed areas not involved in winter construction shall Page 4 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 be mulched and seeded before October 1. Between the periods of October 1 to April 15, all earth disturbing work shall conform with the “Requirements for Winter Construction” standards and specifications of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (2006). 18. In addition to conformance with all erosion prevention and sediment control conditions, the Permittee shall not cause, permit or allow the discharge of waste material into any surface waters. Compliance with the requirements of this condition does not absolve the Permittee from compliance with 10 V.S.A. (§§ 1250-1284) Chapter 47, Vermont's Water Pollution Control Law. 19. Any extracted stumps shall be disposed of on-site above the seasonal high water table and not in any wetland, or at a State approved landfill, so as to prevent groundwater pollution. 20. The Permittee and all assigns and successors in interest shall continually maintain the landscaping as approved in Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan) by replacing any dead or diseased plantings within the season or as soon as possible after the ground thaws, whichever is sooner. 21. Prior to any site work, the Permittee shall install and maintain temporary fencing along the tree line and around trees to be retained as depicted on Exhibits # (Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Proposed Site Plan; Kennedy Drive Pond 5 Proposed Site Plan; and Kennedy Drive Pond 3 Landscaping Plan). 22. No exterior lighting or signage is proposed in conjunction with the Project. 23. The Permittee shall provide each prospective purchaser of any interest in this Project a copy of the Land Use Permit Amendment before any written contract of sale is entered into. 24. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1) this permit amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term, as long as there is compliance with the conditions herein. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, this permit shall expire three years from the date of issuance if the Permittee has not commenced construction and made substantial progress toward completion within the three year period in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 6091(b). 25. All site work and construction shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans by October 1, 2021, unless an extension of this date is approved in writing by the Commission. Such requests to extend must be filed prior to the deadline and approval may be granted without public hearing. 26. The Permittee shall file a Certificate of Actual Construction Costs, on forms available from the Natural Resources Board, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6083a(g) within one month after construction has been substantially completed or two years from the date of this permit, whichever shall occur first. Application for extension of time for good cause shown may be made to the District Commission. If actual construction costs exceed the original estimate, a supplemental fee based on actual construction costs must be paid at the time of certification in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of application. Upon request, the Permittee shall provide all documents or other information Page 5 Land Use Permit #4C1122-1 necessary to substantiate the certification. Pursuant to existing law, failure to file the certification or pay any supplemental fee due constitutes grounds for permit revocation. The certificate of actual construction costs and any supplemental fee (by check payable to the "State of Vermont") shall be mailed to: Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201; Attention: Certification. 27. Failure to comply with any condition herein may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A. sec. 6027(g). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this day of June, 2018. By__________________________ Thomas A. Little, Chair District #4 Commission Members participating in this decision: Parker Riehle Monique Gilbert Any party may file a motion to alter with the District Commission within 15 days from the date of this decision, pursuant to Act 250 Rule 31(A). Any appeal of this decision must be filed with the Superior Court, Environmental Division within 30 days of the date the decision was issued, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220. The Notice of Appeal must comply with the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (VRECP). The appellant must file with the Notice of Appeal the $265 entry fee required by 32 V.S.A. § 1431. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Natural Resources Board, 10 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-3201, and on other parties in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. Decisions on minor applications may be appealed only if a hearing was held by the district commission. Please note that there are certain limitations on the right to appeal. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(k). For additional information on filing appeals, see the Court’s website at: http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx or call (802) 828-1660. The Court’s mailing address is: Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401. Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1.draft.permit.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 22nd day of May 2018, a copy of the foregoing ACT 250 NOTICE OF MINOR APPLICATION #4C1122-1, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals without email addresses and by email to the individuals with email addresses listed. Note: any recipient may change its preferred method of receiving notices and other documents by contacting the District Office staff at the mailing address or email below. If you have elected to receive notices and other documents by email, it is your responsibility to notify our office of any email address changes. All email replies should be sent to nrb-act250essex@vermont.gov. City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 stormwater@sburl.com Thomas DiPietro, Deputy DPW Director/SW Superintendent 104 Landfill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 tdipietro@sburl.com kworden@hoyletanner.com Donna Kinville, City Clerk Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 dkinville@sburl.com Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT 05404 rmahony@ccrpcvt.org Elizabeth Lord, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05602-3901 anr.act250@vermont.gov FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission Thomas Little, Chair Parker Riehle/Monique Gilbert 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Barry Murphy/Vt. Dept. of Public Service 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 barry.murphy@vermont.gov Craig Keller/John Gruchacz/Jeff Ramsey/C. Clow VTrans Policy, Planning & Research Bureau One National Life Drive, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633 craig.keller@vermont.gov; john.gruchacz@vermont.gov jeff.ramsey@vermont.gov; christopher.clow@vermont.gov Vt. Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets 116 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2901 AGR.Act250@vermont.gov Division for Historic Preservation National Life Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 scott.dillon@vermont.gov james.duggan@vermont.gov NRCS, District Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service 68 Catamount Park, Ste. B Middlebury, VT 05753 marybeth.whitten@vt.usda.gov Winooski NRCD Office 617 Comstock Road, Suite 1 Berlin, VT 05602 whiterivernrcd@gmail.com Ethan Tapper, County Forester/FPR John Gobeille, ANR/Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 ethan.tapper@vermont.gov john.gobeille@vermont.gov Seven Days/Classified Ad Section 255 South Champlain Street, PO Box 1164 Burlington, VT 05402 classifieds@sevendaysvt.com Green Mountain Power Corporation c/o Kim Jones 163 Acorn Lane Colchester, VT 05446 kim.jones@greenmountainpower.com Kate Talbot/Vermont Gas Systems PO Box 467 Burlington, VT 05402 ktalbot@vermontgas.com Efficiency Vermont 128 Lakeside Ave., Suite 401 Burlington, VT 05401 pics@veic.org Michael Barsotti, Water Quality Director Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 mike.barsotti@champlainwater.org ADJOINING LANDOWNERS Available via: https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/vtANR/Act250SearchResults.aspx?Num=4 C1122-1 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 22nd day of May, 2018. Natural Resources Board Technician 879-5614 christine.commo@vermont.gov Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C1001-4C1250\4C1122\4C1122-1\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C1122-1 cos.docx 1 Dave Wheeler From:Pfeiffer, Rebecca <Rebecca.Pfeiffer@vermont.gov> Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 1:37 PM To:Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A.; Dave Wheeler Cc:Alexander, Gretchen; ANR - Act 250 Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project - Curtesy Review Hello Kirstin & Dave, This email is a follow-up to our site visit on Wednesday, April 18th. We met to look at any potential floodplain or river corridor impacts from the conversion/improvements to the existing Kennedy Drive stormwater ponds 2 & 3. As Kirstin had stated below, these improvements would be reviewed under Act 250, and our office would be reviewing impacts to floodplains or river corridors under Criterion 1D – Floodways. Under Criterion 1D, the Agency of Natural Resources defines the floodway (called the ANR floodway) using the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) to assess inundation floodplain areas and at the ANR River Corridor maps to assess impacts that may exacerbate riverine erosion hazards. In my 4/4 email below, I have a screenshot from the ANR Atlas that shows the FEMA-mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in gold and the ANR-mapped River Corridor shown in light yellow in the area around ponds 2 & 3. Inundation Flood Hazards: For both Ponds 2 & 3, the FEMA mapped floodplain is shown to be adjacent to the area of the ponds, especially for pond 2. On our 4/18 site visit, we met to see if the project would result in any filling or other impacts to the FEMA-mapped SFHA. Pond 3 is shown to be a bit further from the edge of the floodplain on the maps, and when we went on site, it was clearly located above the surrounding lower area that is mapped as floodplain. Therefore, Pond 3 is non-jurisdictional based on the work that is being proposed at this time. For pond 2, the 50% plan set that you had sent for my review shows the edge of the FEMA SFHA cutting into the western side of the existing pond. As we discussed on site, the proposal is to raise the existing berm on the western side by ~3’ and convert the pond into a gravel wetland. The proposal also includes a cut of material on the upslope side on the SE part of the pond in order to expand the pond’s capacity. From our discussion it appears that pond 2 would be considered to be located in the “ANR floodway” for the purposes of Act 250. When we review proposals located in the ANR floodway, our Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure spells out the standards that we use to make recommendations to the District Commission for 1D considerations. When looking at inundation floodplain impacts, our policy is to maintain flood storage, i.e. for any fill or flood storage is lost due to a proposal, then that flood storage is regained on the site. For pond 2, we do not have any concerns based on the plans as reviewed and as we discussed on site 4/18/18. Although the berm on the western edge of the pond will be raised by ~ 3’, some new flood storage will be created within the pond. Additionally, the large Potash Brook wetland floodplain complex already provides an abundant amount of flood water storage, so the small volume of fill being added at the edge of this large floodplain would not appear to have an adverse impact on flood water storage. River Corridor/Erosion Hazards: In an earlier email exchange, we had determined that there were no river corridor impacts from the stormwater pond conversions. I’ve included a screen shot of the updated river corridor for the area around Pond 2 & 3. The river corridor for the site is actually a bit more narrow than what is shown on the ANR Atlas, since there has been a field assessment for the Potash Brook in this location. The field data helped Gretchen to refine the corridor, and that new corridor based on field data is shown below. The orange-lined corridor is what is found on the ANR Atlas, while the red-lined corridor is the updated corridor based on field data. Therefore, the project does not appear to have any impacts that may affect riverine erosion hazards. ACT 250 District Commission Application #: Exhibit #: Date Received: # 4, 6, 9 4C1122-1 020 5/16/18 ATTACHMENT B Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - Other flows above WQv Pond 3 - Proposed Condition (Expanded DA) - WQv 1S DA (with expansion) 14S DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) 22S Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) 24S Expanded Portion of DA Only 3P Existing Pond as Constructed 17P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 18P Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-1821P Node is just for combining flows - no storage Routing Diagram for Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 12/18/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 3.469 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 1.174 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.279 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 22S, 24S) 8.581 97 Modified CN (14S) 7.743 98 Paved parking, HSG A (1S, 22S, 24S) 3.558 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 24S) 0.940 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 22S) 25.744 88 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 11.212 HSG A 1S, 22S, 24S 4.732 HSG B 1S, 24S 1.219 HSG C 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 HSG D 8.581 Other 14S 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 3.469 1.174 0.279 0.000 0.000 4.922 >75% Grass cover, Good 1S, 22S, 24S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.581 8.581 Modified CN 14S 7.743 3.558 0.940 0.000 0.000 12.241 Paved parking 1S, 22S, 24S 11.212 4.732 1.219 0.000 8.581 25.744 TOTAL AREA Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Expanded Existing Condition Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 3P 270.32 269.00 150.0 0.0088 0.010 15.0 0.0 0.0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-275.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 27501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=8.581 ac 71.32% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.26"Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=2.87 cfs 0.902 af Runoff Area=8.581 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.65"Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 Runoff=5.78 cfs 1.181 af Runoff Area=4.268 ac 78.77% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.39"Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ Runoff=1.64 cfs 0.494 af Runoff Area=4.314 ac 63.95% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.13"Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ Runoff=3.07 cfs 0.408 af Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af Inflow=1.64 cfs 0.494 afPond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Primary=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.31 cfs 0.494 af Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf Inflow=2.87 cfs 0.902 afPond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=1.58 cfs 0.914 af Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf Inflow=5.78 cfs 1.181 afPond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Primary=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=4.37 cfs 1.193 af Inflow=3.13 cfs 0.902 afPond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Primary=3.13 cfs 0.902 af Total Runoff Area = 25.744 ac Runoff Volume = 2.986 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.39" 52.45% Pervious = 13.503 ac 47.55% Impervious = 12.241 ac NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 1.735 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.139 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.871 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8.581 Weighted Average 2.461 28.68% Pervious Area 6.120 71.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 154.2 1,605 0.0007 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 1S: DA (with expansion) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=0.902 af Runoff Depth=1.26" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=154.2 min CN=WQ 2.87 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description * 8.581 97 Modified CN 8.581 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 85.3 1,605 0.0007 0.31 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 279' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 14S: DA (with expansion) WQv only (modified CN) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=8.581 ac Runoff Volume=1.181 af Runoff Depth=1.65" Flow Length=1,605' Slope=0.0007 '/' Tc=85.3 min CN=97 5.78 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.099 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2.892 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.268 Weighted Average 0.906 21.23% Pervious Area 3.362 78.77% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 146.2 1,496 0.0006 0.17 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 112' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 22S: Existing DA (including new area identified by SB) Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.268 ac Runoff Volume=0.494 af Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=1,496' Slope=0.0006 '/' Tc=146.2 min CN=WQ 1.64 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff = 3.07 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.408 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-Q, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Area (ac) CN Description 0.927 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.980 98 Paved parking, HSG A 1.779 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.587 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.041 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 4.314 Weighted Average 1.555 36.05% Pervious Area 2.759 63.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 39.9 636 0.0031 0.27 Lag/CN Method, Contour Length= 579' Interval= 1' Subcatchment 24S: Expanded Portion of DA Only Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98" Runoff Area=4.314 ac Runoff Volume=0.408 af Runoff Depth=1.13" Flow Length=636' Slope=0.0031 '/' Tc=39.9 min CN=WQ 3.07 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Area = 4.268 ac, 78.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 13.81 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Outflow = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af, Atten= 20%, Lag= 47.0 min Primary = 1.31 cfs @ 14.60 hrs, Volume= 0.494 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 270.57' Surf.Area= 0.038 ac Storage= 0.009 af Peak Elev= 274.07' @ 14.60 hrs Surf.Area= 0.084 ac Storage= 0.232 af (0.223 af above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 686.5 min calculated for 0.486 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 657.2 min ( 1,553.5 - 896.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 270.34' 0.504 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 270.34 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.036 270.67 0.039 0.012 0.012 0.039 270.99 0.043 0.013 0.025 0.043 271.32 0.046 0.015 0.040 0.047 271.65 0.050 0.016 0.056 0.051 271.98 0.054 0.017 0.073 0.055 272.31 0.059 0.019 0.092 0.060 272.63 0.064 0.020 0.111 0.065 272.96 0.068 0.022 0.133 0.070 273.29 0.075 0.024 0.157 0.077 276.90 0.119 0.347 0.504 0.125 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.32'15.0" Round Culvert L= 150.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 270.32' / 269.00' S= 0.0088 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 270.57'1.5" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 273.90'64.0" W x 3.5" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 1 274.90'26.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #5 Secondary 274.90'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 2.00 Width (feet) 4.00 20.00 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=1.30 cfs @ 14.60 hrs HW=274.07' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.30 cfs of 8.25 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 8.93 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.19 cfs @ 1.32 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=270.57' (Free Discharge) 5=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 3P: Existing Pond as Constructed Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=4.268 ac Peak Elev=274.07' Storage=0.232 af 1.64 cfs 1.31 cfs 1.31 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 2.87 cfs @ 13.88 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Outflow = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af, Atten= 45%, Lag= 87.3 min Primary = 1.58 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 0.914 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.73' @ 15.33 hrs Surf.Area= 11,784 sf Storage= 23,178 cf (22,268 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,488.8 min calculated for 0.893 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,433.5 min ( 2,338.2 - 904.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.56 cfs @ 15.33 hrs HW=275.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.84 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.44 cfs @ 1.18 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 17P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.73' Storage=23,178 cf 2.87 cfs 1.58 cfs 1.58 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Area = 8.581 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.65" for 1-Year event Inflow = 5.78 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 1.181 af Outflow = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af, Atten= 24%, Lag= 31.2 min Primary = 4.37 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 1.193 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 271.50' Surf.Area= 4,176 sf Storage= 909 cf Peak Elev= 275.87' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 11,931 sf Storage= 24,323 cf (23,414 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 1,142.0 min calculated for 1.172 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,107.0 min ( 1,956.3 - 849.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 269.00' 2,024 cf forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 271.50' 3,523 cf cell 1 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #3 274.00' 15,151 cf cell 1 + forebay (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #4 271.50' 14,077 cf cell 2 (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 34,775 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 269.00 108 0 0 270.00 241 175 175 271.00 600 421 595 273.00 829 1,429 2,024 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 2,052 0 0 272.00 2,260 1,078 1,078 273.00 2,630 2,445 3,523 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 274.00 4,110 0 0 275.00 4,724 4,417 4,417 276.00 5,372 5,048 9,465 277.00 6,000 5,686 15,151 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 271.50 1,467 0 0 272.00 1,652 780 780 273.00 2,014 1,833 2,613 274.00 2,401 2,208 4,820 275.00 2,811 2,606 7,426 276.00 3,245 3,028 10,454 277.00 4,000 3,623 14,077 NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 270.60'1.4" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 275.60'36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Secondary 275.90'6.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=4.35 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=275.87' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 10.99 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 4.23 cfs @ 1.69 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=271.50' (Free Discharge) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 18P: Proposed gravel wetland 2-28-18 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 260240220200180160140120100806040200Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.581 ac Peak Elev=275.87' Storage=24,323 cf 5.78 cfs 4.37 cfs 4.37 cfs 0.00 cfs NRCC 24-hr A 1-Year Rainfall=1.98"Kennedy Pond 3 Updated 4 4 18 - Design Update - Ex Printed 12/18/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 04887 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 8.582 ac, 71.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af Primary = 3.13 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-275.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond 21P: Node is just for combining flows - no storage Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2702602502402302202102001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.582 ac 3.13 cfs 3.13 cfs Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 201.11 Clearing and Grubbing, Including Individual Trees and Stumps 0.22 ACRE $60,000 $13,200 203.15 Common Excavation 1,300 CY $30 $39,000 203.20 Muck Excavation 530 CY $30 $16,000 203.30 Earth Borrow Fill (allowance)360 CY $30 $10,800 204.20 Trench Excavation of Earth 320 CY $30 $9,600 301.15 Subbase of Gravel (pipe bedding)50 CY $35 $1,800 301.25 Subbase of Crushed Gravel, Coarse Graded (drive) 70 CY $45 $3,200 541.25 Class B Concrete (for concrete footers) 1.3 CY $500 $700 613.10 Stone Fill, Type I (Hydraulic Inlet and Collars) 5 CY $50 $300 622.10 Insulation Board 0.98 MFBM $1,200 $1,200 649.31 Geotextile Under Stone Fill, Type II 160 SY $4 $700 649.41 Geotextile Under Underdrain (under gravel layer) 560 SY $4 $2,300 649.515 Geotextile for Silt Fence, Woven Wire Reinforced 170 SY $10 $1,700 651.15 Seed (Outside Wetland)22 LB $50 $1,100 651.29 Straw mulch 0.9 TON $500 $500 651.35 Topsoil (4" topsoil on side slopes and outside wetland) 252 CY $40 $10,100 652.10 Erosion Protection & Sediment Control Plan 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 652.30 Maintenance of EPSC Plan (N.A.B.I.) 1 LU $2,000 $2,000 653.20 Temporary Erosion Matting 650 SY $2 $1,300 653.35 Vehicle Tracking Pad 60 CY $50 $3,000 653.42 Filter Bag 2 EACH $500 $1,000 653.50 Barrier Fence - temporary construction 100 LF $25 $2,500 656.20 Evergreen Trees (White Pine, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 9 EACH $175 $1,600 656.20 Evergreen Trees (Canandian, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 10 EACH $175 $1,800 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Silver Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 2 EACH $250 $500 656.30 Deciduous Trees (Red Maple, B&B, 2-2.5" Caliper) 5 EACH $250 $1,300 656.35 Deciduous Shrubs (Redosier Dogwood) 100 EACH $75 $7,500 656.80 Lanscaping Backfill, Truck Measurement 70 CY $60 $4,200 900.608 Wetland Soil 4 140 CY $50 $7,000 900.608 3/4" gravel (26" thick in cell 1, 24" thick in cell 2) 280 CY $35 $9,800 900.608 Pea Stone - Choker Layer - 3/8" stone (3") 40 CY $50 $2,000 900.61 9" Stone Fill, (swale and spillways)90 CY $65 $5,900 900.620 24" HDPE Risers 4 EACH $2,500 $10,000 900.620 Flared End Section 2 EACH $300 $600 900.620 Seepage Collars 7 EACH $300 $2,100 900.620 Catch Basin - 4' Diameter 2 EACH $5,000 $10,000 900.620 Beehive Grate 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.620 Removable Trash Rack 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500 900.640 24" HDPE Pipe 110 LF $65 $7,200 900.640 8" HDPE Perforated Pipe 80 LF $35 $2,800 900.640 8" HDPE Pipe 62 LF $30 $1,900 900.640 Magnetic Locating Tape 100 LF $2 $200 900.645 Wetland Seed - Marsh/Swamp/Bog Mix 8 LB $100 $800 900.645 Wetland Seed - Detention Basin Mix 5 LB $100 $500 900.690 Dewatering 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal 1 $227,700 635.11 Mobilization/Demobilization (5%)$11,400 900.645 Bonds & Insurance (2%)$4,600 Subtotal $243,700 Construction Contigency (14%)$33,300 $277,000 Total Cost Construction Construction Subtotal VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Stormwater Ponds Improvement Project Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost POND 3 12/10/2018 Total Cost Construction VTrans Pay Item # Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Kennedy Drive Ponds Retrofit Study (1/6 of total) 1 LS $5,050 $5,050 Soil Borings and Testing 1 LS $8,400 $8,400 Wetland Delineation (1/3 of total)1 LS $400 $400 Survey (1/4 of total)1 LS $2,810 $2,810 Final Design Engineering (1/3 of total) 1 LS $16,833 $16,833 Permitting 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $38,493 Bid and Construction Phase Engineering 2 $38,000 $38,000 Administrative 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Easement Assistance 1 LS $0 $0 Legal 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $359,493 $360,000 Acreage of Contributing Watershed Treated 7.12 Retrofit Cost per Acre Treated $50,562 Notes: 1.) Construction cost quantities include Contractor's 15% Overhead and Profit. 3.) Project costs are in 2018 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index for February 2018 = 10889.17. 4.) Assumes that hydric soils onsite can be reused for gravel wetland soil. Cost is to stockpile, test, and place. USE 2.)Bid and construction phase engineering is calculated as per the State of Vermont Pacilities Engineering Division Engineering Fee Allowance Guidance Document, effective September 1, 2011. Actual bid and construction services cost may vary based on final arrangement of bid package and Owner's construction services to be provided. Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Bid and Construction Phase Engineering Subtotal Other Costs Other Costs Subtotal TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Engineering Engineering Subtotal i Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis Revised Document: March 2010 (Original Document: December 2008) Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 BMP Performance Curve: Infiltration Basin 153 BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 154 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Gravel Wetland Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 48% 61% 82% 91% 95% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Commercial Zn 57% 68% 83% 88% 90% 90% 91% 92%TSS 47% 61% 82% 91% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 19% 27% 42% 51% 58% 61% 65% 66%Industrial Zn 40% 54% 74% 84% 88% 90% 90% 91%TSS 47% 62% 82% 92% 96% 98% 99% 99%TP 19% 26% 41% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%High-Density Residential Zn 46% 59% 78% 86% 89% 90% 91% 91%TSS 53% 68% 86% 94% 97% 98% 99% 99%TP 20% 27% 42% 51% 57% 61% 65% 66%Medium-Density Residential Zn 21% 32% 52% 67% 76% 82% 89% 91%TSS 51% 65% 83% 92% 96% 97% 99% 99%TP 21% 28% 42% 51% 57% 61% 64% 66%Low-Density Residential Zn 16% 26% 46% 61% 71% 78% 87% 90% Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 174 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1 One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114 Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 September 2008 BMP Performance Curve: Wet Pond 175 BMP Performance Table BMP Name: Wet Pond Depth of Runoff Treated (inches) Land Use Pollutant 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0TSS 30% 44% 60% 68% 74% 77% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Commercial Zn 59% 71% 80% 85% 87% 89% 92% 93%TSS 30% 45% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%Industrial Zn 50% 64% 77% 82% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 30% 44% 60% 69% 74% 78% 83% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 15% 18% 24% 30%High-Density Residential Zn 53% 71% 78% 83% 86% 88% 91% 93%TSS 34% 48% 62% 70% 75% 78% 84% 87%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Medium-Density Residential Zn 33% 49% 65% 73% 78% 82% 87% 90%TSS 33% 47% 61% 69% 74% 78% 83% 86%TP 2% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 24% 30%Low-Density Residential Zn 28% 43% 60% 69% 75% 79% 85% 89%Annual Pollutant Loading Rates Pollutant load (lbs/acre-year) Land use TSS TP Zn Commercial 1117.77 1.66 2.33 Industrial 745.22 1.43 0.45 High-Density Residential 465.08 1.10 0.79 Medium-Density Residential 274.63 0.55 0.11 Low-Density Residential 72.11 0.042 0.043 Kennedy Drive Pond 3South Burlington, VermontSimple Method for Pollutant LoadingsSimple Method - Phosphorous LoadingNo STP Existing Detention Pond Existing UntreatedProposed Upgraded Gravel WetlandPhosphorous Reduction(lbs/yr)Annual Load = (0.226 (P * Pj * Rv) * C * A) * T 16.377.327.446.388.38Where:0.226 =Simple Method CoefficientP =Yearly rainfall depth (inches)Pj =Fraction of rainfall events producing runoff (0.90)Rv =0.05 + 0.009 * (% site imperviousness (Ia)) 0.690.760.630.69C =Flow weighted mean concentration of pollutant (mg/L)A =Area of contributing watershed (acres)8.584.274.318.58T= Treatment Removal Rate (%)1,200.1800.61Ia=Impervious Area (acres)6.123.362.766.12P =33.9National Climate Data CenterPj =0.9Coefficient = 0.226Table 1: Pollutant Concentration Values ( C )TSS TP NO3 Cu Zn(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)Cropland 145 0.56 4.06 0.0015 0.016Forest 51 0.11 0.80 0 0Industrial 149 0.32 1.89 0.058 0.671Meadow51 0.80 0.11 0 0Open51 0.80 0.11 0 070 0.55 1.83 0.047 0.176142 0.40 0.76 0.054 0.3291. EPA BMP Performance Curve: Gravel Wetland, Land Use: Commercial http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/Guidance/152005.pdfTransportationSources:https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf2. Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Urban Stormwater Retrofit Projects https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/Final_CBP_Approved_Expert_Panel_Report_on_Stormwater_Retrofits--_long.pdf3. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Special Condition Guidance, Appendix V.D - BMP Enhancement, Conversion, and Restoration (05/18/2015)December 18, 2018LandUseResidential 1 Dave Wheeler From:Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:33 AM To:Claudon, Lynnette; Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. Cc:Reilly, John D.; Dave Wheeler; Tom Dipietro Subject:RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin: All set with me also. Roger Bergeron Chief Construction Engineer Phone: 802-760-8135 E-mail: roger.bergeron@vermont.gov Department of Environmental Conservation FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION National Life Building MAIN 1 1 National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05620-3510 Construction website: http://dec.vermont.gov/facilities-engineering/water-financing/srf/srfstep3 “National Life Building requires a security access badge. Please make arrangements before visiting and allow extra time” Note: Emails to and from state employees, regarding state business, are public records. From: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:36 PM To: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: RE: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval Kirstin, I got them. All set with me. ~Lynnette From: Dipietro-Worden, Kirstin A. <kworden@hoyletanner.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:27 PM To: Claudon, Lynnette <Lynnette.Claudon@vermont.gov>; Bergeron, Roger <Roger.Bergeron@vermont.gov> Cc: Reilly, John D. <jreilly@hoyletanner.com>; Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com>; Tom Dipietro <tdipietro@sburl.com> Subject: Kennedy Drive SW Pond 3 Improvements - Final Submission of Plans and Specifications for Bid Approval 2 Lynnette and Roger, I have finished incorporating your review comments on the 100% submission. Attached please find the final design drawings and specifications for the Kennedy Drive Pond 3 project for approval to bid. Please let me know if you have any questions and confirm receipt of attachments. Thank you, Kirstin Kirstin DiPietro Worden, PE Associate Licensed in VT Responsive. Consistent. Competent.™ 125 College Street, 4th Floor | Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 860-1331, ext 324 kworden@hoyletanner.com www.hoyletanner.com Our vision is to provide innovative, collaborative and sustainable engineering and planning solutions to the challenges our clients face, while enhancing the communities in which we work and live. We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards while maintaining integrity and respect within our professional relationships. We continue to build a corporate culture that honors and values the individuality and strengths of our team members and our clients. This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. | info@hoyletanner.com 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: MS‐18‐06 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application DATE: December 18, 2018 Development Review Board meeting Champlain School Apartments Partnership, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval for alternate compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi‐Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulation Section 8.06H for a 20,200 square foot 100 room 5‐story hotel building. At the December 4, 2018 hearing, the Board heard the applicant and continued the hearing to address the entrance on the south side of the building. The applicant has submitted revised materials addressing the requested revisions. Staff considers that the updated configuration meets the Board’s direction to add a public entrance at the south façade with an interior control point, and to modify the façade to make the public entrance more visible and obvious to a pedestrian. In order to make the façade more visible and obvious to a pedestrian, the applicant has modified the glazing and awnings to mimic the configuration of entrances on the east façade. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 December 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene Development Review Officer; P. O’Leary, J. Larkin, R. Biggers, F. Cresta, C. Frank, P. Smiar 1.Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2.Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4.Announcements: There were no announcements. 5.Miscellaneous Application #MS‐18‐06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternative compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi‐Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulation Section 8.06H for a 20,200 sq. ft. 100‐room, 5‐story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road: The applicant identified the site as the present Holiday Inn site in the T4 district. A proposed city street come into the site where the current driveway is. The applicant will build a part of that road. The project also includes renovation of the Holiday Inn building. This will include a plaza space east of the building. A new 5‐story building will serve as a Hampton Inn and will be adjacent to the proposed city street. Existing parking will be slightly reconfigured. Mr. Biggers said they are looking for an “energizing urban node” with visual access from the Interstate. The 2 hotels will look related but will maintain individuality. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 The new street will be the primary façade for the Hampton Inn. It will engage pedestrians with an outdoor patio, breakfast area with umbrellas, etc. Parking will be on the far side of the building, underground. Mr. Biggers identified the major access. There will also be a limited entrance in the area of meeting rooms. This will have visual control from the front desk. Guests will have access via a card system. The question is how they can meet the spirit and intent of the guidelines as far as building access is concerned. A short video was shown indicating what would present itself as a pedestrian enters the site along the new road. Mr. Biggers stressed the amount of glass on the building. Mr. Wilking suggested a buzzer system at the meeting room entrance. Mr. Kochman asked what is the violation and what is the proposed “fix.” Ms. Keene said the issue is the minimum number of entrances and spacing between entrances. Section 806H allows for “alternate entrance compliance.” The Board can grant a difference from the standards if the proposal meets a list of criteria which focus on meeting the standard. A “buzzered” entrance at the exterior does not meet the criteria. Mr. Larkin said they are happy to pursue whatever comes out of this meeting to solve this challenge. Mr. Biggers said the entrances would be open when spaces are in use. Mr. Miller noted there is a 4‐door minimum requirement on the new street. The applicant proposes 2 doors on the new street. The one on the south side would be viable if there is a vestibule with an interior buzzer system. Mr. Behr said he envisions people being able to go (on foot) out the south entrance to get to the Mall and other attractions. They will then want to get back in at the south entrance. He felt it was important to make that feel like a public entrance. He said if they can solve that, he would be OK with this alternate entrance. Mr. Miller and Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Wilking felt there is a lot of public access. The question for him is whether a buzzer on the south side will meet the standard and allow the hotel to maintain security. Mr. Behr said if they make the south entrance more pronounced, he was OK with it. How they solve the interior situation is up to them. Ms. Keene then enumerated the standards as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 a.Staff considers the proposal addresses comprehensive plan objectives 41, 42 and 46 b.Staff considers the proposed building and entrance configuration meets the purposes of the transect zone c.Staff considers the design establishes a pedestrian friendly environment through use of wide walking areas, etc. Mr. Sullivan questioned what is gained by making the south entrance more formal. Mr. Miller said it gains more visual appeal. Mr. Behr said that with a public element on the rooftop, it makes the south entrance more important. Mr. Sullivan suggested a “rooftop only” elevator so people using that entrance don’t have automatic access to the guest rooms. Mr. Kochman said if the access is to be used by musicians coming for events, it has to be made convenient for them. Mr. Sullivan felt there can be a different time frame for the south entrance. The regulations say “business hours,” which doesn’t necessarily mean business hours for the whole building but only for the use adjacent to the south entrance. Mr. Wilking suggested a door from the elevator lobby that could close off the meeting room area so it is a separate use. He felt they have a right to set separate hours for the meeting rooms. Mr. Kochman felt it is a really nice project. He just didn’t want “a sore thumb.” Ms. Smith said she liked the look of the new Shelburne Rd/Fayette Rd building because the top floors are set back a bit. Mr. Larking wasn’t sure they would be allowed to do that here. Ms. Keene said staff will look into that. Ms. Keene then enumerated the other standards that must be met as follows: a.Features used to meet the standards are beyond minimum standards in the Form Based Code District. (Ms. Keene said staff feels this is met.) b.None of the proposed elements are season‐dependent. (Ms. Keene said staff feels this is met). c.Staff considers the proposed alternatives are met without the use of artwork or commissioned works. Mr. Miller summed up by saying that with an adjustment to the south entrance, the project would meet or exceed the standards. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Cota moved to continue MS‐18‐06 to 18 December 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐18 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, to re‐ subdivide two lots of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres, 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesti Drive: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller noted that staff feels wetland issues have been addressed. Mr. Cresta showed where adjustments were made. Mr. Wilking noted that Catamount now has more responsibility for the wetland than they did before. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐18‐18. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 7.Continued Site Plan Application $SP‐18‐51 of NFI Vermont, Inc., to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home. The amendment is to construct a building addition, four new parking spaces, and pedestrian walkway, 102 Allen Road: Mr. Miller noted the issue of tree replacement deficiency. Mr. O’Leary noted there had been a shortage in the landscaping budget. They have added trees up to the required amount. He noted that a previous approval had used existing trees as part of the landscaping amount. As part of the construction of the addition, they will have to remove some trees, about 32 inches total caliper. Regulations require replacing that over and above the landscaping amount. He estimates that would mean another $7500 to a non‐profit agency. Mr. O’Leary asked the Board to find that they meet the requirement with the landscaping budget. Mr. Sullivan asked if they have authority to waive that requirement. Ms. Keene said the Board can require other amenities (e.g., hardscape features such as benches). Mr. Wilking said he agrees 100% with the applicant. He felt the rule is overly strict, but they are stuck with it. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Wilking added that this is a heavily landscaped site that doesn’t need another tree. He said he would be happy “to bless this” as presented if the rules allowed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 Ms. Keene suggested a Board deliberative session on this issue and continuation of the hearing. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP‐18‐51 until 15 January 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8.Minutes of 6 November 2018: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 6 November 2018 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9.Other Business: Ms. Smith advised that she will not be seeking re‐appointment when her term expires in June. Ms. Keene suggested members encourage people to apply. Members discussed what to look for in a candidate. Some suggestions were: a female, design‐sensitive people, someone from the Chamberlin area (not now represented), an understanding of the role of the DRB, an engineer. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:59 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MP‐18‐01_1505 Dorset Street_Dorset Meadows Assoc_2018‐12‐18.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 14, 2018 Application received: April 20, 2016 1505 DORSET STREET MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP‐18‐01 Meeting date: December 18, 2018 Owners/Applicants Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC 44 Park Street Essex Jct., VT 05452 Engineer O’Leary‐Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Drive Essex Jct., VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570‐01475, 0570‐01505 SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection 69.66 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted revised plans which vary slightly from the original application used to draft the public notice. Staff considers the current application is substantially similar to that which was described in the public notice, well within the variability that could be expected based on Staff and Board comments and therefore no additional public notice is required. The public notice was issued as follows: Master plan application #MP‐18‐01 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street. The revised project description is: Master plan application #MP‐18‐01 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 56 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street. ZONING DISTRICT TABLES SEQ‐NR and SEQ‐VR (except as noted) Required Requested (and discussed herein) *Min. Lot Size Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 4,600 Min. Lot Size Two‐Family 24,000 sq. ft. N/A Min. Lot Size Multi‐Family 40,000 sq. ft. N/A *Max. Building Coverage Single and Two‐Family 15% 30% *Max. Overall Coverage Single and Two‐Family 30% 45% *Max. Building Coverage Multi‐Family 15% 30% *Max. Overall Coverage Multi‐Family 30% 45% *Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 15 ft. *Min. Side Setback Single and Two‐Family 10 ft. 5 ft. Min. Side Setback Multi‐Family 20 ft. N/A Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A Max. Building Height Single or Two‐Family (pitched) 28 ft. N/A Max. Building Height Multiple Family (pitched), SEQ‐NR 28 ft. N/A Max. Building Height Multiple Family (pitched), SEQ‐VR 35 ft. N/A Stories facing street Single and Two‐Family 2 N/A Stories facing street Multiple family, SEQ‐NR 2 N/A Stories facing street Multiple Family, SEQ‐VR 3 N/A Stories below roofline 3 N/A *Waiver or finding requested by applicant and discussed herein. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 3 COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, herein after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments: Overview The applicant’s letters of September 26 and December 7, 2018 provide the details of their proposal. In summary, the applicant is seeking Master Plan approval for a PUD to construct: 151 dwelling units on 69.66 acres 15.80 acres in the Natural Resource Protection District to remain undeveloped 38.89 acres in the Neighborhood Residential District 14.97 acres in the Village Residential District The applicant is asking for a selection of waivers and considerations, which will be addressed later in these comments. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development regulations, “any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan. As the initial master plan, the review of these standards establishes the parameters for the project. (a)An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; The proposed plan is described as consisting of 151 residential units. (b)An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; 1.Total site coverage for the proposed plan is approximately 20%. The applicant has somewhat revised their layout based on initial Staff feedback since their initial submission. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the total site coverage prior to closing the hearing. (c)A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; The Project contains two roadways with a width equivalent to the collector roadway width identified in LDR Table 15‐5. The Applicant has identified these both as local roadways in the master plan, but Staff considers Elderberry Lane running north‐south to be a collector roadway. 2.Staff recommends the Board discuss this designation with the applicant, and if accepted, require CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 4 the applicant to revise the master plan as a condition of approval. (d)Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or The proposed Master Plan shows three (3) open space areas: Open Space 1 in the northeast corner at 13.18 acre, Open Space 2 at the east side at 5.52 acres, and Open Space 3 at the west side at 15.11 acres. 3.Staff notes the applicant has labeled Open Space 3 as “3” on some plans and as “7” on other plans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct this as a condition of approval. (e)A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. The project is proposed to result in 145 PM peak hour vehicle trip ends. Staff considers the Board should require this value to be updated to reflect the revised unit mix, though does not anticipate a significant change and considers this can be imposed as condition of approval. Criteria for Review of Master Plans Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements The applicant met with DPW staff on July 26 and August 29 to review the proposed water and wastewater capacity and demand from the Project. The DPW is satisfied that the available water supply is adequate to serve the project, and is in agreement with the Applicant’s proposed cost share for the future pump station upgrades. Staff considers this criterion met. (2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The Project will require either an individual or general State construction stormwater permit. Staff considers this criterion met. (3)The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access to the project area is proposed via two (2) routes as follows: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 5 from the north via Elderberry Lane1, from the east via Trillium Street The project is also laid out to allow connection to a future road to the South at such time as the southern parcel is developed. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact assessment, for which the Applicant proactively authorized a third party technical review. The technical review, Applicant response, and revised traffic impact assessment are included in the packet for this application. The original traffic impact assessment is available upon request. 4.Staff considers the Applicant has attempted to address the technical review comments, but does not have adequate expertise to determine if the response has been adequate, and has referred the revised study to the third party reviewer for confirmation. Staff will provide feedback to the Board regarding the revised traffic study at a continued hearing. The circulation within the development would be via the proposed city streets. As to pedestrian access and circulation, sidewalks are provided along all new streets. Bike paths or shared use paths are provided along Elderberry Lane and the segment of Trillium Street connecting to Dorset Street. Staff considers the Trillium Street connection important because of the planned bike path along Dorset Street. This is supported by the comments provided by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, included in the packet. According to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the applicant, the TIA reached the conclusion “adequate capacity… presently exists on roadways and at intersections in the immediate vicinity of this Project, and will continue to exist with this Project.” It does note that future PM peak hour levels of service will fall below LOS D for certain turning movements at the Spear Street/Nowland Farm Road intersection, though this scenario exists for both Build and No‐ Build scenarios. The TIA notes that as an unsignalized intersection with fewer than 100 vehicles per hour, VTrans doesn’t apply a level of service standard, and concludes that improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. The technical review also addresses this intersection and notes that intersections improvements will need to be considered as traffic flows increase at this location. It recommends consideration of a single‐lane roundabout at this location for it’s safety performance and it’s potential to eliminate left turn movements at nearby driveways. 5.Staff is reviewing the Spear Street Corridor Study to evaluate options for this intersection. The applicant has provided an easement for future traffic improvements at the Nowland Farm/Dorset Street intersection in the form of a 110‐foot radius centered on the intersection. Staff considers this would provide adequate space for a typical roundabout. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan as part of their simultaneous preliminary plat application. Staff considers that establishing phasing for roadways and other aspects of the proposed development would be appropriate at the Master Plan stage of the review process. The Project is proposed to be constructed in four phases. The phasing plan takes into consideration the LDR’s prohibition on greater than 50 units 1 Street names have not yet been approved by the Planning Commission and are used here for identification only. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 6 accessed via a single access point. Staff considers the provided phasing plan supports adequate pedestrian and vehicle access and circulation and recommends the Board adopt it as a part of this application, with modifications as discussed below. (4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. Staff considers the applicant has minimized wetland and stream impacts through their site layout. The Natural Resources committee has indicated verbally they are reviewing the Project and have indicated they will provide a letter requesting the Board continue the hearing to allow them to complete their review. The applicant has submitted emails from the State rivers program and wetlands program as well as from the US Army Corps of Engineers in support of the proposed layout. In particular, the email from the rivers program notes the wetland on the eastern portion of the site is primarily a wetland with some areas of concentrated flow, and that the 50‐foot wetland buffer extends beyond the river corridor boundary. Therefore by protecting the 50‐foot wetland buffer, the river corridor is also protected. There are no wildlife habitat areas identified in this area in the Open Space Strategy. The site is bisected by a perennial stream with a surrounding wetland area. Article 12 standards pertaining to water resources are addressed in detail as part of the concurrent preliminary plat application. 6.Staff recommends the Board consider continuing the hearing to allow the Natural Resources Committee to complete their review. Staff recommends the Board evaluate the requested continuation date when it is received. (5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The purpose statement of the SEQ is as follows. A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well‐planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Project area as designated for medium to lower intensity residential to mixed used development. The Applicant has submitted a series of elevation drawings for each of the home types in addition to a proposed lot configuration. Staff considers the larger lots and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 7 homes proposed along Nowland Farm particularly support this criterion. Staff notes the proposed elevations for the duplex buildings present as a front on both the front and rear sides, which supports their location along the central neighborhood park. 7.Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide an elevation for the multi‐family home facing Dorset Street demonstrating that both the Dorset Street and Trillium Street sides will present as fronts of the building. (6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board provided comments on this criterion at sketch. Staff considers the applicant has made modifications to the layout to address this criterion, and considers this criterion met. Large areas of open space are located around the perimeter of the development. These open space areas are connected by an interior network of neighborhood parks which are equipped with walkable surfaces to facilitate enjoyment of the open areas. Interior parks are adjacent to homes, a criterion of the Southeast Quadrant, but simultaneously delineated by landscaping and landscape features to create a park‐like feel to the spaces. Perimeter open spaces, including wetland buffers and more than 16 acres within the SEQ‐NRP district, will remain undeveloped to support the natural functions of these spaces. (7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The deputy Fire Chief, Terry Francis, reviewed the project and provided comments in an email to staff dated October 24, 2018. The comments relate to the detailed layout of the intersections, a criterion addressed in subdivision review. The deputy Fire Chief had no concerns related to the master plan which only dictates the overall layout of collector roadways. Staff considers this criterion met. (8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The Project provides for connections to the south as well as connecting to existing roadways at Dorset Street and Nowland Farm Road. Roads, recreation paths/sidewalks and utilities are all proposed to connect at these points. Staff considers lighting is a detailed and fungible element of the project therefore has addressed it in comments on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff considers this criterion met. (9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. Staff considers the provided layout elements consistent with City standards. Lighting and utility design are addressed as part of the preliminary plat review. Staff considers this criterion met. (10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 8 district(s). The Goals of the comprehensive plan are 1.Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our residents and visitors. 2.Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure. 3.Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green South Burlington. 4.Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community. The project lies within the Southeast Quadrant of the city. Southeast Quadrant objectives In the Comprehensive Plan adopted are: 60.Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development. 61.Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining agricultural lands. 62.Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques, streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway profile suited to its intended local traffic function. Staff considers this project strongly supports each of these goals and objectives through the creation of contiguous open space areas, conservation of 56 acres of off‐site land, and providing additional development and connectivity along Dorset Street. Staff considers this criterion met. (11)The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. The applicant has prepared a detailed stormwater management plan as part of the preliminary plat application. For the master plan, the applicant has indicated the location of stormwater features and wetland impacts. Staff considers the overall master plan layout supports this criterion. Requested Waivers and Findings A)Phasing As discussed above, the Applicant has provided a phasing plan as part of their simultaneous preliminary plat application. Staff considers that establishing phasing for roadways and other aspects of the proposed development would be appropriate at the Master Plan stage of the review process. The Project is proposed to be constructed in four phases, and Staff is supportive of the phasing plan as it pertains to access and circulation. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 9 8.Staff considers the phasing plan should also that into consideration communal elements of the Project such as parks and paths so that each phase is accompanied by a proportional amount of infrastructure, and recommends the Board require the Applicant to amend the phasing plan to assign the communal elements to phases. B)Dimensional Standard Waivers The requested dimensional standard waivers are tabulated above. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to continue to meet the building and overall coverage standards for each zoning district, while granting the requested waivers on a lot by lot basis. In addition to the dimensional standard waivers discussed above, the applicant has requested three additional waivers. C)Adjustment of preconstruction grade The applicant is requesting that the Board approve an adjusted pre‐construction grade as allowed under Section 3.12. The applicant has shown the requested pre‐construction grade on plan sheets SH 5 to SH 8. Staff has reviewed the requested grades and summarizes them as follows. Overall, the applicant appears to have designed the grading to minimize the amount of fill while still allowing for sewer and drainage flows without the need for pumps. Staff considers the grading will result in a relatively uniform appearance from the streets. Staff considers that the grading is less uniform when considered from the rec paths located along the rear of the interior lots, likely in order to reduce the amount of imported fill required for the Project. 9.Staff recommends the Board approve the requested pre‐construction grades and consider whether to request the applicant “smooth” the rear yard grading to create a more uniform appearance from the rec paths. D)Lot Ratios Properties in the SEQ‐NR and SEQ‐VR are required to maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2 with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. Staff considers this lot ratio is generally met except for a handful of lots, which are primarily corner lots with the exception of Lot 36 which does not meet the standard because of opposing homes on a curve. The applicant has proposed to meet this requirement on an average basis. 10.Staff recommends the Board grant this waiver request and consider whether to create a limit on individual ratios, such as no lot having width to depth ratio less than 1:1 E)Zoning District Boundaries According to Section 15.03(C) the boundary of a zoning district may be relocated up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by the application at the discretion of the DRB. The applicant has shown on Exhibit #2 where they are requesting the new boundary line be located compared to the existing boundary. Staff considers that any relocation of the district boundaries should result in no net loss to the protected areas within the City. The Applicant is proposing conservation areas with an equivalent acreage CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 10 to the shifted boundary, which Staff considers addresses this concern. However, the applicant may not further subdivide the remining area within the NRP. SEQ‐NRP Standard 9.12B(2)(a)(i) states: Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non‐NRP SEQ sub‐district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, no subdivisions of land or construction of new dwelling units shall be permitted in the NRP subdistrict; 11.Staff considers therefore that the applicant must reconfigure Lots 82 to 88 to not require subdivision of the area within the SEQ‐NRP zoning district 12.Once reconfiguration is complete, Staff notes that the Project acreage within each zoning district is necessary for calculation of impervious coverage and recommends the Board require the applicant to provide updated acreages prior to closing the hearing to allow the correct values to be recorded in the decision on this application. F)Coverage The applicant has requested that buildings (regardless of whether single family, duplex, or multifamily) be permitted to cover 30% of their lots and impervious surfaces (including buildings) be permitted to cover 45% of their lots. Staff notes that the LDRs requires the proscribed coverages be met on an overall basis by zoning district. This means for each of the SEQ‐NR and SEQ‐VR districts, building and lot coverage may not exceed 15% and 30%, respectively. 13.Staff supports the applicant’s waiver request but recommends the Board require overall building and lot coverage calculations by zoning district be submitted prior to final plat approval for the Project. G)Setback Waivers The applicant’s waiver request letter of December 5, 2018 details the setback waivers requested. Fifteen (15) foot front yard setback instead of the 20 foot standard setback. Five (5) foot side yard setback instead of the 10 foot standard setback for single and two‐family homes. Staff considers that setback waivers are strongly dependent on detailed site layout and building design and have limited relevance to the master plan review criteria. Staff therefore recommends the Board consider the applicant’s request for setback waivers as part of Preliminary Plat rather than Master Plan review. H)Lot Size The applicant has requested a lot size waiver for single family homes from 12,000 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft. No lot size waiver is requested for two or multi‐family homes. Staff considers this reduced lot size is supported by well‐distributed and amenitized open spaces under common ownership and supports this request. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner DĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶtĂŝǀĞƌ>ŝƐƚϭϮͲϱͲϭϴ ^ YͲEZZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ^ YͲsZZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ tĂŝǀĞƌZĞƋƵĞƐƚ DŝŶ>Žƚ^ŝnjĞ^ŝŶŐůĞ &ĂŵŝůLJϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ^& ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ^& ϰ͕ϲϬϬ^& DŝŶ>Žƚ^ŝnjĞdǁŽ &ĂŵŝůLJϮϰ͕ϬϬϬ^& Ϯϰ͕ϬϬϬ^& Eͬ DŝŶ>Žƚ^ŝnjĞDƵůƚŝ &ĂŵŝůLJϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ^& ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ^& Eͬ DĂdžƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ ϭϱй ϭϱй ϯϬй DĂdžKǀĞƌĂůůŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ ϯϬй ϯϬй ϰϱй DŝŶ&ƌŽŶƚ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϮϬ͛ ϮϬ͛ ϭϱ͛ DŝŶ^ŝĚĞ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ͕ ^ŝŶŐůĞĂŶĚdǁŽͲĨĂŵŝůLJϭϬ͛ ϭϬ͛ ϱ͛ DŝŶ^ŝĚĞ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ DƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůLJϮϬ͛ ϮϬ͛ Eͬ DŝŶZĞĂƌ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϯϬ͛ ϯϬ͛ Eͬ DĂdžƵŝůĚŝŶŐ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ^ŝŶŐůĞŽƌdǁŽͲ&ĂŵŝůLJϮϴ͛ Ϯϴ͛ Eͬ DĂdžƵŝůĚŝŶŐ,ĞŝŐŚƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ&ĂŵŝůLJϮϴ͛ ϯϱ͛ Eͬ ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐĨĂĐŝŶŐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ ^ŝŶŐůĞĂŶĚdŽǁͲ&ĂŵŝůLJϮ Ϯ Eͬ ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐďĞůŽǁƌŽŽĨůŝŶĞ͕ ^ŝŶŐůĞĂŶĚdǁŽͲ&ĂŵŝůLJϮ ϯ Eͬ WůĞĂƐĞƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^,ϱʹ^,ϴŽĨƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚƉƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŐƌĂĚĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞϭϱϬƵŶŝƚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞ ƉƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŐƌĂĚĞǁĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŽďĞϮͲϰĨĞĞƚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ͘ dŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĂǁĂŝǀĞƌƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůŽƚǁŝĚƚŚƚŽĚĞƉƚŚƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϭ͗Ϯ ŽƌŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ͕ŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJůŽƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐƚŚĞZƚŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞEZWͬEZnjŽŶŝŶŐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJƚŽďĞƐŚŝĨƚĞĚ ϱϬ͛ƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚƐŽĨůŽƚƐϴϬͲϴϴ͘dŚĞZŚĂƐƚŚĞ ĚŝƐĐƌĞƚŝŽŶƚŽŵŽǀĞƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJƵŶĚĞƌϭϱ͘Ϭϯ͘ŽĨƚŚĞ>ZƐ͘dŚĞĂƌĞĂŝƐ ŵŽƐƚůLJĐůĞĂƌĞĚĂŶĚŝƐƵƐĞĚĂƐůĂǁŶďLJƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJĚǁĞůůŝŶŐĂƚϭϱϬϱ ŽƌƐĞƚ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ dŚĞ njŽŶŝŶŐ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ ŝƐ ƐŚŽǁŶ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂŶ ƐĞƚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ 275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 PHONE 802 861-7000 FAX 861-7007 MSKVT.COM December 13, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Bill Miller, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 C/o Mr. Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Email: pconner@sburl.com Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 Dear Chairperson Miller: I serve as counsel for Tom and Donna Anfuso, 695 Nowland Farm Road; Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road;Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road; William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons interested in the above-referenced Applications (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”). On behalf of SOS South Burlington, I write to request that the DRB postpone the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2018 concerning Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 (collectively, the “PP/MP Applications”), and that the hearing not be rescheduled until after January 4, 2019, which is the deadline for SOS South Burlington to appeal the DRB’s December 5, 2018 Decision in #AO-18-01 (the “December 5th Decision”) to the Vermont Superior Court – Environmental Division (the “E-Court”). In a recent case involving the South Burlington DRB, the E-Court confirmed that the DRB must reach a “final decision” concerning a sketch plan application. Saxon Partners LLC BJ’s Warehouse Sketch Plan, No. 5-1-16 Vtec, 2016 WL 4211462, at *2, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 25, 2016) (Walsh, J.) (emphasis added) (citing SBLDR § 15.03(C)(1), (3)). See also Saxon Partners, 2016 WL 4211462, at *3, slip op. at 3 (“Though most towns’ sketch plan procedures call primarily for informal, non-binding review, some towns [such as South Burlington] authorize their municipal panels to make broad, final decisions at the sketch plan phase.”) (emphasis added). Letter to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller December 13, 2018 Page 2 of 2 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com State statutory law and the SBLDR are in accord. See 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), which requires written minutes of DRB votes “showing the vote of each member upon each question. . . .” (emphasis added); and SBLDR § 15.05(C)(3), which mandates that the DRB “shall determine if the proposed [sketch plan] application meets the purposes of” the SBLDR as a necessary requirement to close the meeting on the sketch plan (emphasis added). See also SBLDR § 15.07(C)(1) (master plan application must be filed “within six (6) months after the final DRB meeting on the sketch plan”) (emphasis added); and SBLDR § 15.08(A) (preliminary plat application must be filed “within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan”). SOS South Burlington continues to maintain that the DRB’s lack of a formal vote on Sketch Plan Application No. SD-18-23 renders the PP/MP Applications premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect. Significantly, one DRB Member – who is also a lawyer – observed during the November 20, 2018 appeal hearing concerning #AO-18-01 that the non-vote-on-sketch issue is ‘not trivial’ and that E-Court guidance concerning it could be helpful to the DRB. In that connection, I note respectfully that the December 5th Decision does not address 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a) or Saxon Partners. SOS South Burlington is considering appealing the December 5th Decision to the E- Court. A notice of appeal would need to be filed no later than January 4, 2019. Accordingly, SOS South Burlington requests respectfully that the DRB postpone the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2018, and that the hearing not be rescheduled until after January 4, 2019. If SOS South Burlington proceeds with an E-Court appeal, the DRB and/or the applicant may wish to postpone further DRB proceedings regarding Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 until after the E-Court appeal is resolved. Thanks in advance for your consideration, and happy holidays. Respectfully submitted, /s/Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail) Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail) Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail) #SD‐18‐29 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐18‐29_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow_2018‐12‐ 04.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 14, 2018 Application received: September 26, 2018 1505 Dorset Street Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐18‐29 Meeting date: December 18, 2018 Owner/Applicant Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC 44 Park Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570‐01475, 0570‐01505 SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection 69.66 acres Location Map #SD‐18‐29 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION The Applicant has submitted revised plans which vary slightly from the original application used to draft the public notice. Staff considers the current application is substantially similar to that which was described in the public notice, well within the variability that could be expected based on Staff and Board comments and therefore no additional public notice is required. The public notice was issued as follows: Preliminary Plat application #SD‐18‐29 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street. The revised project description is: Preliminary plat application #SD‐18‐29 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 56 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant. The proposed development is concurrently seeking Master Plan approval as required in LDR Section 15.07C. The development is subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design review. Master plan standards are discussed in staff comments pertaining to application #MP‐18‐01. CONTEXT The Project came before the Development Review Board as a sketch plan application on July 17 and August 7, 2018. Staff considers the currently proposed development is consistent with the layout shown on the sketch plan, incorporating recommendations made by the Development Review Board. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. A.ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS DENSITY #SD‐18‐29 3 SEQ density standards allow a maximum of four (4) dwelling units to the acre in the SEQ‐NR zoning district, eight (8) dwelling units to the acre in the SEQ‐VR zoning district, and in the case of the subject parcels, zero units in the SEQ‐NRP district. The applicant has requested the boundary line between the SEQ‐NR district and the SEQ‐NRP district be relocated 50‐feet to the west as allowed under LDR Section 15.03C, and to replace the lands removed from the SEQ‐NRP with conserved lands adjacent to the NRP within the SEQ‐NR district. With the proposed zoning district boundary, the applicant is proposing 35 dwelling units within the 14.97 acre SEQ‐VR district, and 116 units including the existing single family home to remain within the 38.89 acre SEQ‐NR district. Staff considers this criterion met. In order for the Project to realize an average overall density greater than 1.2 units per acre, the applicant must demonstrate development rights (“TDRs”) have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ‐NRP sufficient to yield an overall density of 1.2 units per acre. Therefore, as presented in this application, the Project will need 66.4 TDRs. The development rights must be purchased by the Applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the property’s inherent density. 1.Staff recommends the Board require as a condition of approval that the documentation of an option to purchase sufficient TDRs be submitted as part of the final plat application. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS The applicant is requesting the following dimensional standards waivers as part of their master plan application, which is being simultaneously reviewed at the preliminary plat level here. Standard SEQ‐NR Requirement SEQ‐VR Requirement Requested Revised Standard Min. Lot Size, Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 4,600 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage, Single, Two and Multi‐Family 15% 15% 30% Max. Overall Coverage, Single, Two and Multi‐ Family 30% 30% 45% Min. Front Setback, Single, Two and Multi‐ Family 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. Min. Side Setback, Single and Two Family 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. Lot size and coverage waiver requests are discussed in the staff comments for MP‐18‐01. No waivers are requested for rear yard setback or for side yard setback for multi‐family homes. Staff considers the front setback waiver request supports the goal of an activated street presence with open spaces interwoven throughout the development and recommends the Board accept the front setback waiver request. Regarding side yard setbacks, the narrowest lots are located in the interior of the development and appear to have a minimum width of 46 feet. Based on the provided elevations, it appears that only two of the provided single family home types would fit within the remaining 36 feet on the interior lots. Staff is #SD‐18‐29 4 concerned this would result in insufficient variation within the interior of the development, and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant approaches to remedy this concern. Staff does not consider that a reduction in homes is a good solution and rather suggests the applicant consider developing a wider variety of smaller home types to promote variation within the interior lots. For the exterior lots, it appears the widest home types (the ranch‐style single family homes) will use the entire available width within the requested setback but the other home types will not require a setback waiver. The applicant’s proposed design narrative does not place restrictions on the location of same‐type homes next to one another and recommends perhaps limiting no more than two adjacent same type homes if the Board has concerns about the proximity of homes along the exterior lots. Home styles notwithstanding, Staff supports the applicant’s request for reduction of the side setback because it supports a well planned and integrated network of open spaces. 2.Staff recommends the board discuss the issues above pertaining to home styles and determine whether to approve the applicant’s request for side setback waiver. The applicant is proposing to meet the remainder of the dimensional standards from Appendix C, but has requested an adjusted preconstruction grade as allowed under Section 3.12, which is discussed in the staff comments for MP‐18‐01. DORSET PARK VIEW PROTECTION ZONE D Much of the subject acreage is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone D. The maximum elevation is based on an equation taking into consideration the distance of the building from the baseline, located on Golf Course Road. Within the limits of the area proposed for development, the limiting maximum elevation is 433.6. This maximum elevation is in the area where single family homes are proposed with a proposed preconstruction grade in the range of 397 feet. 3.Staff considers that buildings meeting the allowable height of 28 feet should fall below the maximum allowable elevation, but recommends the Board include as a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate that each proposed structure is compliant with the View Protection Zone prior to the issuance of the zoning permit for each building. B.PHASING The Applicant has submitted a phasing plan showing four phases of development. Phasing is discussed in the staff comments for MP‐18‐01. C.PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The Applicant obtained preliminary water allocation for 164 units on August 8, 2018. The Applicant is currently proposing 150 units. #SD‐18‐29 5 The Applicant estimates the Project will generate 34,044 gpd wastewater. The applicant met with DPW staff on July 26 and August 29 to review the proposed water and wastewater capacity and demand from the Project. The existing conveyance and treatment infrastructure is adequate to serve the proposed project, but will result in the existing Vermont National pump station operating at approximately 80% of its maximum capacity. The Applicant has proposed to provide a $350 per unit fee to cover their share of pump station upgrades. The DPW is in agreement with the Applicant’s proposed cost share for the future pump station upgrades. 4.Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose a payment schedule and inflation adjustment methodology as part of their final plat application, but otherwise considers this criterion met. (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The Applicant will submit a detailed erosion control plan as part of final plat. The Project will require either an individual or general State construction stormwater permit. Staff considers this criterion can be addressed at final plat. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access to the project area is proposed via two (2) routes as follows: from the north via Elderberry Lane1, from the east via Trillium Street The project is also laid out to allow connection to a future road to the South at such time as the southern parcel is developed. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact assessment, for which the Applicant proactively authorized a third party technical review. The technical review, Applicant response, and revised traffic impact assessment are included in the packet for this application. The original traffic impact assessment is available upon request. 5.Staff considers the Applicant has attempted to address the technical review comments, but does not have adequate expertise to determine if the response has been adequate, and has referred the revised study to the third party reviewer for confirmation. Staff will provide feedback to the Board regarding the revised traffic study at a continued hearing. The remainder of this criterion are addressed in the staff comments for MP‐18‐01. (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. 1 Street names have not yet been approved by the Planning Commission and are used here for identification only. #SD‐18‐29 6 6.Staff has discussed compliance with this criterion as part of the review of MP‐18‐01. Based on the available information, Staff considers this criterion met but recommends the Board consider continuing the hearing to allow the Natural Resources Committee to complete their review. Staff recommends the Board evaluate the requested continuation date when it is received. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. 7.Staff has discussed compliance with this criterion as part of the review of MP‐18‐01. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide an elevation for the multi‐family home facing Dorset Street demonstrating that both the Dorset Street and Trillium Street sides will present as fronts of the building. (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. During sketch plan review, the Board expressed a desire to see the open space areas connected to one another. Staff considers the applicant has made modifications to the layout to address this criterion, and considers this criterion met. Compliance with this criterion is discussed in the staff comments for MP‐18‐01. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In an email to staff dated October 24, 2018, the deputy Fire Chief, Terry Francis, asked the applicant to evaluate the ability of a fire truck to navigate the proposed roadway layout. The applicant has responded as follows: Please refer to SH 17 – Signage Plan, the WB‐40 body type has no issues entering the development. However, once inside the development the WB‐40 body type does have an issue maneuvering around some of the interior local streets. This is primarily due to a combination of narrower streets, curbed roads and the pedestrian friendly crossing requirements of section 9.08 (B) (5) / Figure 9‐6 in the LDRs. The WB‐40 turning radius overlaps the curb line by about 3 feet in the narrowest intersections. The applicant is requesting direction from Staff as to whether the intersections where the WB‐40 body type has an issues passing through, should be widened to allow for easier passage or if the project should utilize angled/mountable curbing? Staff proposes to work with the applicant to address these issues in advance of the final plat application. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The Project provides for connections to the south as well as connecting to existing roadways at Dorset Street and Nowland Farms Road. Roads, recreation paths/sidewalks and utilities are all proposed to #SD‐18‐29 7 connect at these points. Lighting plans show consistent proposed lighting layout throughout the development and the proposed fixtures are consistent with the approved fixtures for the City. Fixtures are proposed to be mounted on 13‐foot poles. The Stormwater Section provided a comment letter on the proposed stormwater infrastructure on October 25, 2018. The applicant responded to these comments in a revised submission as described in their letter of December 7, 2018. The Stormwater Section has not yet had an opportunity to review the revised materials, but considers the revisions will not have a significant impact on the project layout. 8.Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing to allow the Stormwater Section an opportunity to review the revised plans. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the Applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. Staff considers the provided layout elements consistent with City standards. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on November 2, 2018, and the applicant responded to these comments in a revised submission as described in their letter of December 7, 2018. On December 12, 2018, the Public Works Director indicated his comments had been addressed. Staff considers this criterion met. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows. Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development. Objective 61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining agricultural lands. Objective 62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques, streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway profile suited to its intended local traffic function. This criterion is discussed as part of Staff Comments for MP‐18‐01. Staff considers this criterion met. D.SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Excluded from site plan review are one and two family dwellings on a single lot. This means that the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots within the Proposed #SD‐18‐29 8 development are subject to these standards, because they are not located on single lots. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A.Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit Development Standard (A)(10) above and in the Staff Comments for MP‐18‐01. B.Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1)The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff provided the applicant with comments pertaining to this criterion on November 6, 2018. The applicant addressed these comments in their revised application on December 7, 2018, and the responses are summarized in their cover letter dated December 7, 2018. As discussed elsewhere in these staff comments, the Applicant has provided for a variety of home types with common elements creating a theme and variation approach. Provided landscaping exceeds the minimum requirement by approximately $150,000. Pedestrian movement is facilitated by a network of sidewalks and recreation paths along the proposed roadways as well as network of walking paths that are part of the provided parks. Parking is provided in private garages and driveways, with parking along at least one side of the street in all locations where homes front onto the street. Staff considers this criterion met. (2)Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The proposed single and two‐family homes are exempt from this standard. The multi‐family homes have parking to the rear or side. Staff considers this criterion met. (3)Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. Staff considers the provided home elevations and layout will result in a mixed but harmonious visual appearance. See also section 9.08C and 9.09C for a discussion of SEQ housing styles 9.Staff recommends the Board consider requiring the proposed grading be smoothed between rear yards to create less of a tall appearance when homes are viewed from the recreation paths running internal to the development. #SD‐18‐29 9 (4)Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 10.Proposed electric and telecom lines are not shown on the provided plans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed layout of site utilities, including electric cabinets, prior to final plat approval. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate coordination with the electric service provider regarding general utility cabinet number and location. C.Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1)The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Applicant has submitted a set of model home plans and elevations for each of the single family, duplex and multi‐family dwellings. Staff has reviewed the provided elevations and considers each home type is harmoniously related to but sufficiently different from the others to create an attractive, coherent and yet diverse neighborhood. The applicant has proposed a Unit Design Guidelines document to ensure that the mixture of home models meet this standard. In addition to internal harmony, the applicant has designed the home architecture and lot layout at the perimeter of the development to be transitional between existing homes along Nowland Farm Road and Dorset Street and the development. 11.Staff recommends the Board incorporate the Unit Design Guidelines as a condition of approval, and recommends whether the Board consider whether to require the applicant to add a condition that limits the number of adjacent homes of the same type. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A.Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The applicant has proposed a street and recreation path connection to the south adjacent property for future connection and a pedestrian trail easement to the west. 12.Staff considers this criterion met but recommends the Board require the applicant to update their plat plan to reflect the pedestrian trail easement. #SD‐18‐29 10 B.Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above. C.Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The applicant has proposed a dumpster location for the multifamily units on Nowland Farm Road but has not provided a dumpster or solid waste handling area for the multi‐family buildings off Trillium Street. 13.Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to add a solid waste handling area for these homes as well, and recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for complete enclosure of the solid waste area. D.Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the project for landscape budget purposes is estimated at $14,058,750 by the applicant. The applicant calculates the minimum landscaping budget to be $148,087. The applicant is proposing to meet the minimum required landscape budget by providing plantings around the two family home and multi family homes. They are also proposing to provide an estimated $81,500 in qualifying landscaping cost in other greenspace areas around the Site, and to provide between $2,100 and $2,700 in landscaping around each single family home. The City Arborist submitted comments in an email to staff on October 1, 2018, which the Applicant addressed in their December 7, 2018 revised submission. On December 12, 2018, the City arborist reviewed the revised plans submitted on December 7, 2018 and indicated he had no concerns. E.SOUTHEAST QUADRANT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore, it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts. The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A.Height. See Article 3.07. Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers area not available for structures with the SEQ zoning district. The Project is located within the SEQ‐NRP, SEQ‐NR, and SEQ‐VR districts. Height has been discussed above as it pertains to alteration of existing grade and view protection districts. Staff considers this criterion met. B.Open Space and Resource Protection. #SD‐18‐29 11 (1)Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels The Applicant met with the Recreation and Parks committee on November 19, 2018. Their memorandum is included in the packet, but their specific recommendations are excerpted below. Recreation and Parks Committee recommends: The Committee supports the recommendations that were made by staff and outlined in the memo from Marla Keene on November 7th. That developer review proposed Open Space Matrix that will be used for future PUD growth. The matrix offers a menu of types of park space and recreation equipment that might be included in different types of development. As the neighborhood develops, residents may form consensus on future amenities. The HOA might contribute to building these. The Committee recommends consideration of potential option to add a dog park. The Applicant has provided a variety of open space types throughout the development, shown most clearly on the Landscaping plans Sheet L201 and L202. Open space types specifically from the future PUD matrix include a neighborhood park, a playground, an enhanced wooded area, and several pedestrian passes connecting the open spaces. Emphasis has been placed on creating inviting open spaces that are well delineated as separate from the home lots. Staff considers this criterion met. (2)Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The applicant calculates the maximum density for the subject parcels to be 275 units, and is proposing 151 units. The applicant is proposing to purchase Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) to allow the project to have closer to the maximum density. Staff considers that the applicant has laid out the development to facilitate the densities allowable and therefore considers the layout is consistent with the regulating plan. (3)A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. 14.Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit an open space management plan prior to final plat approval with wetland buffers clearly delineated. Management plan should indicate the open spaces should be maintained as designed, including language allowing for appropriate maintenance of the recreation trail easement located within the Natural Resource Protection zone. Staff considers there are some existing trees located within the development. The applicant has prepared a tree inventory plan showing how the existing trees greater than 6 inches in caliper relate to the proposed development. 15.Staff considers that it appears based on a review of layout and grading plans that at least some of the existing mature trees can be preserved within the proposed open spaces, and recommends the Board require the applicant to prepare a tree preservation plan showing trees to be preserved. #SD‐18‐29 12 (4)Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. See discussion under PUD Criteria A(2). (5)Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. Staff considers proposed landscaping and fencing adequate and suitable for protection of resource areas. Protection is provided in the form of landscape boulders, segments of split rail fence, and vegetation. C.Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐ supported agriculture. The Applicant has indicated that the site contains prime agricultural soils and is subject to Act 250 review. Projects that meet both of these conditions must demonstrate to the State that the proposed impacts are warranted and must provide mitigation for impacted soils at a ratio of 2:1 within the same Act 250 District as the impacts. In addition to the required off‐site mitigation, the Project will result in conservation of 56 acres off‐site within the Southeast Quadrant through the purchase of TDRs. D.Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has obtained preliminary water allocation. As discussed under PUD Standard A(1) above, the Applicant has discussed wastewater capacity with the DPW. #SD‐18‐29 13 16.Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. (2)Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above. (3)Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above. (4)The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above. D.Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1)Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2)Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3)The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above. 9.07 Regulating Plans A.... B.General Provisions (1)… (2)All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of #SD‐18‐29 14 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended There are a handful of lots that do not meet this recommended ratio, primarily corner lots with the exception of Lot 36 which does not meet the standard because of opposing homes on a curve. The Master Plan application includes a request for meeting this criterion on average. Should the Board grant the requested master plan waiver request, Staff considers this criterion met. C.… D.Parks Design and Development. (1)General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home. (2)Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐ NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts: a.Distribution and Amount of Parks: i.A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. See discussion under SEQ Criterion 9.06B above. ii.Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development. Neighborhood Park E is designed as the central recreation feature of the development with the alignment of Dewberry Lane specifically designed to facilitate views of Camels Hump. Other recreation features are well integrated into the development, are connected to one another and are fronted by development. Staff considers this criterion met. iii.Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program. Parks are provided at a rate of 14.3 acres per 1,000 population, including 3.78 acres of developed parkland and 1.36 acres of open field. As discussed in the connection with Standard 9.06B above, the developed parkland falls into the categories of neighborhood park, playground, enhanced wooded area, and several pedestrian passes connecting the open spaces. In addition, the Project includes #SD‐18‐29 15 33.8 acres of open space which is not proposed to be actively maintained. Staff considers this criterion met. iv.A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly‐owned developed recreation area. All of the parks included in the above calculation are greater than 10,000 square feet. Staff considers this criterion met. b.Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 17.Staff recommends the Board require the applicant submit a draft of the homeowner’s association agreement describing the management of open spaces as part of the final plat application, and that they require the applicant to clarify which if any of the proposed open spaces are proposed to be public and which are proposed to be maintained by the homeowners association. c.Design Guidelines i.Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them sociable, safe and attractive places. ii.Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections. iii.To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas. The provided parks are located along homes and contain recreation paths. Open spaces are demarcated by a combination of landscaping, landscaping boulders and split rail fencing. The recreation and parks committee stated in their memorandum of November 19, 2018 to the Board they are satisfied with the proposed unpaved surface treatment of paths within the park areas. Staff considers this criterion met. 9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A.Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1)Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. The applicant has provided block lengths no greater than 500 feet except for two locations where the development connects to existing streets. In the first block off Nowland Farm #SD‐18‐29 16 road the applicant has provided a mid‐block pedestrian crossing which accesses parklands on the west side of the crossing. In the first block off Dorset Street the applicant has provided a mid‐block pedestrian crossing to allow residents of the multi‐family buildings on the south to access the recreation path on the north. Staff considers the designed functionality of these crossings exceeds the minimum of this criterion. (2)Interconnection of Streets (a)Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. See discussion immediately above. (b)Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. The applicant has proposed a 100‐foot dead end street at the south end of the development specifically to meet PUD criteria A(3) and A(8) above. Staff considers this criterion met. (3)Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended See discussion under 9.07 above. B.Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1)Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed streets are the minimum width necessary to allow two‐way traffic and parking on one or both sides where necessary, except for Dewberry Lane is 20‐feet wide instead of 18‐feet. At a technical review committee meeting on July 24, 2018 the Acting Fire Chief requested two feet additional width on Dewberry Lane to allow maneuvering of emergency vehicles during snow events when vehicles are parked on both sides of the road. Where pavement width only allows for parking on one side, the provided signage plan limits parking to just one side of the street. Recreation paths are located to the sides of streets with fewer driveway crossings. The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee met with the Applicant on November 15, 2018 and provided recommendations in minutes dated November 15, 2018 which have been addressed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (2)Sidewalks. (a)Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from #SD‐18‐29 17 the street. (b)Sidewalks are required on one side of the street. Plans show that the sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, will occur on at least one side of the street, and will have a sufficient planting strip. Staff has worked with the applicant to determine optimal locations for where sidewalks would be on one and on two sides of the street based on street type and contiguity of dwelling units. Staff considers this criterion met. (3)Street Trees (a)Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b)Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. As discussed above, the City Arborist has provided comments which have been addressed. Street trees have been placed with consideration for views and for driveway locations at the required spacing. Staff considers this criterion met. (4)On‐street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. This requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses adjacent to the street. One lane of on‐street parking has been provided on all streets which serve as the frontage for proposed homes. 18.Staff considers that to require additional parking where no homes are proposed would detract from the provided open spaces and parklands and recommends the Board approve the parking layout as proposed. (5)Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic. The Applicant has provided reduced pavement width at all pedestrian crossings. Staff is working with the applicant and fire department to assure emergency vehicle access while meeting this standard. Staff considers this criterion preliminarily met. (6)Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. #SD‐18‐29 18 Proposed fixtures will be mounted at a 13‐foot pole height and are concentrated around pedestrian crossings. Staff considers the overall illumination levels appropriate for the lower intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ with minimum trespass. This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR district. C.Residential Design (1)Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan. The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type. Primary entries face the street. Building orientation varies through the development and thus the translucence standard cannot be evaluated at this time. Staff considers that translucence criteria should be evaluated by the administrative officer at the time of zoning permit application. 19.Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant whether they wish to seek any variation from this standard and notes that any variation will require DRB approval. (2)Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. See discussion of building elevations under Site Plan Review standard above. (3)Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a)Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b)Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Buildings are proposed to be generally within 15‐feet from the back of sidewalk. The design guidelines require that homes be located on the lots to meet this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. (4)Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling. (a)For the purposes of this subsection: (i)The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary #SD‐18‐29 19 entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’) (ii)The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide. 20.The applicant has provided floor plans demonstrating compliance with this criterion for all home types except the single family corner type, which does not appear to meet this criterion. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the single family corner type. (b) … (c)Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and townhouses. All multi‐family homes are proposed to be served by alleys. The applicant is not proposing any alleys within the single family and duplex homes. However duplex homes are proposed to have the appearance of a front on both sides of the building creating an appearance of rear‐loaded buildings abutting parkland. Staff considers this criterion met. (d)Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units. The applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that single family homes exist throughout the development, with two areas of single family homes, and the multi family homes are grouped nearest to the existing roadways. The proposed design standards ensure that within each grouping of homes that the home styles be mixed. Staff considers this criterion met. This comment also applies to the SEQ‐ VR district. 9.09 SEQ‐VR Sub‐District; Specific Standards The SEQ‐VR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A.Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1)Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this criterion met. (2)Interconnection of Streets (a)Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. #SD‐18‐29 20 See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this criterion met. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer‐head) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. There are no dead end street within the SEQ‐VR. Staff considers this criterion met. (3)Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. Lots in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot. Staff considers this criterion met. B.Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1)Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub‐district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this criterion met. (2)Sidewalks (a)Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b)Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers these criteria met. (3)Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. (4)On‐street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. (5)Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9‐6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). #SD‐18‐29 21 See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. (6)Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. C.Residential Design (1)Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). See discussion under Site Plan Review standard above. (2)Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. (3)Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a)Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk. Within the SEQ‐VR, homes are proposed to be located within fifteen feet of the back of the sidewalk. Staff considers this criterion met. (b)Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. Within the SEQ‐VR, porches are proposed to project into the setback by approximately 6‐feet. Staff considers this criterion met. (4)Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7. Section 9.08C(4) does not apply to multi‐family homes. Site Plan general review standard B addresses parking for multi‐family buildings and is addressed above. (5)Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should #SD‐18‐29 22 be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units. See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. F. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland. (1)Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2)Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3)Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: The applicant is proposing one wetland crossing and has provided documentation of communication with the US Army Corps of Engineers and State Wetlands program indicating they are generally supportive of the applicant’s proposed configuration as long as the existing driveway crossing is removed and the remaining wetlands and buffers are demarcated and set aside as no mow zones. The applicant is also proposing a small amount of encroachment into Class III wetland buffers which are not regulated by either the State or the US Army Corps of Engineers. (a)The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; The applicant has indicated the proposed wetland crossing will be subject to a stream alteration permit which will review the appropriateness of the proposed design. Staff considers the stream alteration permit will result in a crossing design which accommodates aquatic organism passage, which generally results in a crossing of more than adequate size to carry or store flood waters during large storm events. 21.Staff considers the required stream alteration permit will result in compliance with this criterion and recommends the Board require the Applicant demonstrate that they have obtained that permit prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. (b)The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; The Stormwater Section has reviewed the proposed plans and has not expressed any concern about this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. (c)The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. #SD‐18‐29 23 Staff considers the State wetland permit which will be required for this project will confirm compliance with this criterion. 22.Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the Applicant submit their State wetland permit as part of their final plat application or prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐ half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit Development Standards above. G.ENERGY STANDARDS Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SD‐18‐29 1505 Dorset Street Dorset Meadows Packet for 12/18/2018 Hearing Table of Contents Principal Application Documents Civil Plans Exhibit 2 – Zoning Boundary Shift Architectural Drawings Applicant Cover Letters in Chronological Order Design Narrative Supporting Application Documents Traffic Documents including Traffic Technical Review Landscaping Budget State Water Resources Correspondence Materials Supplied by Others Committee Comment Letters Public Comment Letters Received Since Sketch Meeting Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dorset Meadows Traffic Impact Assessment September 14, 2018 revised December 6, 2018 Introduction Dorset Meadows is a proposed 150 unit planned residential development located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Nowland Farm Road and Dorset Street in South Burlington. The Project will be served via two new public streets; one accessing onto Nowland Farm Rd 1,200± ft west of Dorset St, and the second accessing onto Dorset St 600± ft south of Nowland Farm Rd. This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines existing and future traffic congestion and safety conditions on the adjacent highway network in the vicinity of this Project, and analyzes the probable impacts that this Project will have on those conditions. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes on Spear St, Dorset St and Nowland Farm Rd in the immediate vicinity of this Project were obtained from several sources. The first were automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts performed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) on Spear St and Dorset St. On Spear St, ATR D086, located north of Swift St, was most recently counted in 2016, and yielded an annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of 5,700 vpd. Pivoting1 that ATR to Spear St south of Swift St provided an AADT of 6,100 vpd between Swift St and Nowland Farm Rd. On Dorset St, ATR D344, located south of Nowland Farm Rd, was also most recently counted in 2016, and yielded an AADT of 4,900 vpd. Lastly, ATR D658, located on Nowland Farm Rd, was last counted in 2014, and yielded an AADT of 1,100 vpd. Each ATR count observed the greatest hourly traffic volumes during the afternoon peak period (4-6 pm). VTrans’ most recent estimates of traffic growth on Vermont’s highway predict a 9% growth rate in traffic volumes over the 20-year period from 2017-2037, or 0.45% per year. The corresponding estimated traffic growth rates equal 1% from 2016 to 2019, and 3% from 2016 to 20242. 2024 represents the standard five-year projection used in TIA’s from the initial analysis year; in this case 2019. This office also performed morning and afternoon peak period turning movement counts at the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd and Dorset St/Nowland Farm Rd intersections. Copies are enclosed in Appendix A. The observed peak hour volumes from those counts were adjusted to year 2019 and 2024 design hour volumes (DHV), the 30th highest hour of traffic volumes in a year, using data from VTrans Continuous Count Stations D099 on I-189 in South Burlington and D129 on VT Route 2A in Williston. 1 Pivoting is a process of transferring AADT’s from one side of an intersection to another using total volumes from a 12-hour intersection turning movement count. 2 Continuous Traffic Counter Report (The Redbook), Vermont Agency of Transportation, March 2018 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. New peak hour trips generated by nearby unbuilt major developments were then added to background traffic volumes. These “other developments” include: C Spear Meadows - 48 residential units located on Spear St, C South Village (Phases 2 and 3) - 120 residential units, C Cider Mill (Phase 2) - 142 residential units located on Dorset St and Hinesburg Rd, and C Kwiniaska Subdivision - 91 residential units located on Spear St in Shelburne. Together, the estimated background DHV’s and other development peak hour trips form the baseline “No-Build” scenario for this TIA. Figures detailing the foregoing traffic volumes are attached in Appendix B. Project-Generated Trips Estimates of the peak hour trips that will be generated by this Project were calculated using published trip generation rates3 for 130 single family residential units and 20 units multi-family units (ITE Land Use Categories #210 and 220, respectively). The single family residential category includes 1 existing detached single family unit, 13 duplexes, and 103 new detached single family units. Table 1 summarizes the resulting peak hour trip generation estimates. Table 1 - Project-Generated Peak Hour Trips # Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single Family 130 24 72 96 83 48 131 Multi-Family 20 2 8 10 9 5 14 Totals 150 26 80 126 92 53 145 The directional distributions of peak hour project-generated trips were estimated using the peak hour patterns observed entering and exiting the nearby Cider Mill residential development on Dorset St. Because Nowland Farm Rd provides a convenient link between Dorset St and Spear St, peak hour trips traveling to and from the north were further distributed 60% via Dorset St and 40% via Spear St. Half of the trips to and from the south were estimated to travel via Dorset St due to the alignment of Nowland Farm Rd and the relative proximity of Cheese Factory Rd linking Dorset St & Spear St. The other half were estimated to travel via Spear St. Combining the estimated peak hour project-generated trips with the no-build volumes provides the Build DHV turning movements. Figures detailing the foregoing traffic volumes are enclosed in Appendix B. Traffic Congestion Levels of service (LOS) at intersections are determined by the average control delay; measured in seconds per vehicle. The methodology for analyzing LOS is established by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)4. Table 2 summarizes the LOS/delay criteria for unsignalized intersections. 3 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition 4 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Avg. Delay (sec/veh) A B C D E F ≤10 ≤15 ≤25 ≤35 ≤50 >50 In Vermont, LOS C represents the desired design standard for roadways and signalized intersections5. At two-way stop controlled (unsignalized) intersections having greater than 100 vph approach volume on a single-lane side street approach or greater than 150 vph approach volume on a two-lane side street approach, the VTrans level of service policy establishes LOS D as the desired design standard on the minor street approach(s). There is no level of service standard for unsignalized intersections not meeting the above side street volume thresholds. Reduced levels of service are acceptable in densely settled areas where volume/capacity ratios remain below 1.0 and/or the improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can also be used to help mitigate levels of service not meeting the foregoing standards. Future peak hour traffic volumes exiting Nowland Farm Rd, Deerfield Dr and Old Cross Rd do not presently meet the above side-street approach volume thresholds at their respective intersections with Spear St and Dorset St. Future side-street approach volumes with this Project’s peak hour trips will also remain below those thresholds. For the purpose of this TIA, however, intersection capacity analyses were performed at those two intersections and at the new development street intersections onto Nowland Farm Rd and Dorset St. All analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software v.6.5. The results are presented in Tables 3-6. Detailed analysis reports are also enclosed in Appendix C. The results shown in Tables 3-6 indicate that the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd intersection is the only intersection presently experiencing significant delays on its two side-street approaches. All of the other intersections will experience average delays (LOS C) or better. Future (2024 Build) side-street approach volumes at the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd intersection will remain less than 100 vph even with the addition of project-generated trips. The PM peak hour southbound left-turn and AM peak hour westbound right-turn movements are the ones which will see the greatest increases due to this Project (30 vph and 28 vph, respectively). Both of those movements have dedicated turn lanes; thus minimizing conflicts with and increased delays to other movements. The movement experiencing the greatest delays at the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd intersection during the pm peak hour time period will be the westbound left-turn/through movement exiting Nowland Farm Rd. This lane only serves 34 vph in the 2024 PM Build analysis, and will experience LOS F with or without this Project. 5 Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 3 – Spear St / Nowland Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C 2019 AM Peak Hour Spear St NB L/T/R Spear St SB L Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Nowland Farm Rd WB R Deerfield Dr EB L/T/R A A D B D 7.9 9.2 30.3 14.3 29.6 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.07 0.24 A A D C D 7.9 9.3 32.2 15.0 33.8 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.14 0.26 2024 AM Peak Hour Spear St NB L/T/R Spear St SB L Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Nowland Farm Rd WB R Deerfield Dr EB L/T/R A A D B D 8.0 9.3 31.3 14.5 30.7 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.07 0.24 A A D C D 8.0 9.3 33.3 15.2 34.9 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.14 0.27 2019 PM Peak Hour Spear St NB L/T/R Spear St SB L Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Nowland Farm Rd WB R Deerfield Dr EB L/T/R A A F B E 9.1 9.0 53.5 12.9 40.3 0.00 0.03 0.31 0.02 0.12 A A F B E 9.1 9.2 67.6 13.3 47.8 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.06 0.14 2024 PM Peak Hour Spear St NB L/T/R Spear St SB L Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Nowland Farm Rd WB R Deerfield Dr EB L/T/R A A F B E 9.2 9.1 55.5 13.0 42.1 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.02 0.13 A A F B E 9.2 9.2 72.2 13.4 50.0 0.00 0.06 0.42 0.06 0.15 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 4 - Dorset St / Nowland Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C 2019 AM Peak Hour Dorset St NB L/T/R Dorset St SB L Old Cross Rd WB L/T/R Nowland Farm Rd EB L/T/R A A C C 7.6 8.5 15.7 17.9 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.18 A A C C 7.6 8.5 16.3 19.9 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.24 2024 AM Peak Hour Dorset St NB L/T/R Dorset St SB L Old Cross Rd WB L/T/R Nowland Farm Rd EB L/T/R A A C C 7.6 8.5 15.9 18.2 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.19 A A C C 7.6 8.6 16.6 20.4 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.25 2019 PM Peak Hour Dorset St NB L/T/R Dorset St SB L Old Cross Rd WB L/T/R Nowland Farm Rd EB L/T/R A A B B 8.2 7.7 12.1 13.1 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.12 A A B C 8.4 7.7 14.4 16.5 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.19 2024 PM Peak Hour Dorset St NB L/T/R Dorset St SB L Old Cross Rd WB L/T/R Nowland Farm Rd EB L/T/R A A B C 8.3 7.7 13.8 15.2 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.15 A A B C 8.4 7.7 14.6 16.9 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.19 Table 5 - Nowland Farm Rd / Project Street Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach Build 2019 2024 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Project street NB L/R A A 7.3 9.2 0.00 0.04 A A 7.3 9.2 0.00 0.04 PM Peak Hour Nowland Farm Rd WB L/T Project street NB L/R A A 7.4 9.2 0.01 0.03 A A 7.4 9.3 0.01 0.03 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 6- Dorset St / Project Street Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach Build 2019 2024 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour Dorset St NB L/T Project street EB L/R A B 7.6 14.2 0.00 0.08 A B 7.6 14.4 0.00 0.08 PM Peak Hour Dorset St NT L/T Project street EB L/R A B 8.3 13.9 0.01 0.05 A B 8.3 14.1 0.01 0.05 Traffic Safety The posted speed limits on Dorset St and Nowland Farm Rd in the vicinity of this Project are 40 mph and 25 mph, respectively. The horizontal and vertical alignments of these two roadways are excellent without steep grades or sharp curves. Excellent sight distances well in excess of 600 ft also exist at both of the new Project street intersections with Dorset St and Nowland Farm Rd. In comparison, recommended intersection sight distances at 25 mph and 40 mph equal 280 ft and 445 ft, respectively. Safe stopping sight distances at 25 mph and 40 mph equal 155 ft and 305 ft, respectively. VTrans regularly examines five-year crash statistics to identify two types of high crash locations (HCL): highway sections (in running 0.3 mile long segments) and intersections. The most recent HCL report6 was examined; with no HCL’s being identified on either Spear St or Dorset St in the vicinity of the Project. The crash history at the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd and Dorset St/Nowland Farm Rd intersections for the 2012-2016 five-year period were examined. Table 4 summarizes the crash histories of those two intersections. Table 4 - 2012-2016 Crash Histories Crash Type Year Totals 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Spear St / Nowland Farm Rd Single Vehicle 1 - - - - 1 Dorset St / Nowland Farm Rd Thru Moves Broadside L/T Angle Broadside 1 1 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2 The crash histories shown in Table 4 do not indicate any specific existing hazards or unsafe conditions. However, we noted in a site visit to the Dorset St/Nowland Farm Rd intersection that several bushy trees 6 High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2012-2016, Vermont Agency of Transportation, August 2017 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7 Consulting Engineers, Inc. and other vegetation exists immediately adjacent to the roadway just south of #1437 Dorset St’s driveway. This vegetation limits the visibility of oncoming northbound vehicles on Dorset St. Warrants for the installation of exclusive left and right-turn lanes at intersections have been adopted to reduce conflicts between turning and through traffic and to improve traffic safety. These warrants were examined at the new Dorset St / Project street intersection where potentially a northbound left-turn lane and/or a southbound right-turn lane might be warranted by future PM peak hour traffic patterns (when traffic entering the Project peaks). However, future 2024 PM peak hour volumes with the Project (2024 PM Build) were determined to not satisfy the warrants for either turn lane. TDM Strategies & Multi-Modal Connections This Project includes the construction of new sidewalks along the new development streets. Additionally, a new shared-use path will be provided along the north-south Project street intersecting with Nowland Farm Rd. These new sidewalks and shared-use path will connect with the City’s existing shared-use path network at the Nowland Farm Rd / Project street intersection. Transportation Impact Fees Based on the estimated 145 PM peak hour trips, this Project will contribute $130,800 ($902 per trip end) to the City of South Burlington in transportation impact fees. Those fees will be used to construct designated highway and intersection improvements throughout the City (as identified in the City Impact Fee Ordinance). This Project will also pay $288,000 ($1,920 per unit) in recreation impact fees to the City of South Burlington, of which approximately 69% ($198,700) is designated to be used for the development of recreation paths (shared-use paths) and bicycle lanes throughout the City. There are no State highway improvement projects in the City of South Burlington or nearby in neighboring towns for which State Act 145 transportation impact fees would apply. Conclusions & Recommendations From the foregoing analyses, we have formed the following conclusions and recommendations regarding the potential traffic congestion and safety impacts of this Project: C That adequate capacity, as evidenced by volume/capacity ratios, presently exists on roadways and at intersections in the immediate vicinity of this Project, and will continue to exist with this Project. C Although future PM peak hour levels of service will fall below LOS D at the Spear St/Nowland Farm Rd intersection, its low side-street approach volumes exempt it from VTrans’ level of service design standard. C Future levels of service will meet accepted design standards for unsignalized intersections at all other intersections and/or time periods. C Safe traffic conditions will be maintained in the vicinity of the Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A L&D Intersection Turning Movement Counts Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX B Traffic Volume Diagrams 15 304 11 14 150 7 32 29 52 5 8 0 63 58 63 58 2 11 5 29 0 0 0 0 9 6 2 656 30 0 0 0 0 20 498 3 0 165 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 9 0 0 0 28 15 330 11 14 159 7 32 29 52 5 8 0 63 58 63 58 2 11 5 35 0 0 0 0 9 6 2 731 32 0 0 0 0 20 526 3 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 8 0 0 28 14 0 0 0 1 3 10 4 0 0 0 4 9 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 29 10 3 5 0 28 0 8 1 28 5 3 0 15 330 19 19 167 7 32 57 66 5 8 0 64 61 73 62 2 11 5 39 9 4 1 1 10 6 2 731 34 29 10 3 5 20 554 3 8 175 28 5 3 549 Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Old Cross Rd Old Cross Rd Old Cross Rd Dorset St New Road Dorset St Old Cross Rd Spear St New Road North New Road North 2019 Build AM Peak Hour New Road Spear St Spear St Dorset St 20 MFU Driveway 2019 No Build AM Peak Hour New Road Deerfield Dr Project AM Peak Hour Trips Deerfield Dr Deerfield Dr Spear St Deerfield Dr Spear St 20 MFU Driveway New Road 20 MFU Driveway Spear St Spear St Dorset St Other Development AM Peak Hour Trips 20 MFU Driveway New Road 521 New Road North Spear St Dorset St Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd 2019 Background AM Peak Hour Nowland Farm Rd Spear St 549 20 MFU DrivewaySpear St New Road North New Road North P:\2018\18057\Turnfig.xlsx, 12/6/2018 36 617 24 34 389 11 9 11 30 5 4 4 62 41 62 41 7 4 1 26 0 0 0 0 25 5 3 597 31 0 0 0 0 4 209 2 0 419 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 31 0 0 0 18 36 701 24 34 420 11 9 11 30 5 4 4 62 41 62 41 7 4 1 30 0 0 0 0 25 5 3 642 38 0 0 0 0 4 227 2 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 30 15 29 0 0 18 9 0 0 0 3 2 7 11 0 0 0 4 35 11 3 6 1 0 0 0 8 20 7 2 3 2 17 0 29 1 17 4 8 2 36 701 54 49 449 11 9 29 39 5 4 4 65 43 69 52 7 4 1 34 35 11 3 6 26 5 3 642 46 20 7 2 3 6 244 2 29 451 17 4 8 235 20 MFU Driveway Dorset St 233 Nowland Farm Rd Old Cross Rd New Road Old Cross Rd New Road Spear St 2019 Build PM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road North New Road North Nowland Farm Rd 20 MFU Driveway Deerfield Dr Deerfield Dr 20 MFU Driveway New Road Deerfield Dr New Road North Nowland Farm Rd Spear St Old Cross Rd New Road Other Development PM Peak Hour Trips Spear St 2019 No Build PM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road North Dorset St Nowland Farm Rd New Road North Spear St Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd Old Cross Rd Spear St New Road 20 MFU Driveway 215 Deerfield Dr New Road North Spear St 2019 Background PM Peak Hour Dorset St Nowland Farm Rd Spear St Spear St Spear St Spear St Project PM Peak Hour Trips P:\2018\18057\Turnfig.xlsx, 12/6/2018 15 311 11 14 153 7 32 29 53 5 8 0 65 58 65 58 2 12 5 29 0 0 0 0 10 6 2 669 30 0 0 0 0 20 508 3 0 169 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 9 0 0 0 28 15 337 11 14 162 7 32 29 53 5 8 0 65 58 65 58 2 12 5 35 0 0 0 0 10 6 2 744 32 0 0 0 0 20 536 3 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 8 0 0 28 14 0 0 0 1 3 10 4 0 0 0 4 9 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 29 10 3 5 0 28 0 8 1 28 5 3 0 15 337 19 19 170 7 32 57 67 5 8 0 66 61 75 62 2 12 5 39 9 4 1 1 11 6 2 744 34 29 10 3 5 20 564 3 8 179 28 5 3 559 20 MFU Driveway Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd New Road North New Road North Spear St Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd New Road 20 MFU DrivewaySpear St New Road Spear St 2024 Build AM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road North New Road North Deerfield Dr Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd New Road 559 20 MFU DrivewaySpear St Spear St Project AM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St Old Cross Rd Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd Spear St 2024 No Build AM Peak Hour Dorset St 20 MFU Driveway New Road Spear St Spear St Other Development AM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St 531 Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd Spear St New Road North New Road Spear St 2024 Background AM Peak Hour Dorset St 20 MFU Driveway Nowland Farm Rd P:\2018\18057\Turnfig.xlsx, 12/6/2018 36 629 24 35 397 12 9 11 31 5 4 4 63 41 63 41 7 4 1 26 0 0 0 0 25 5 3 609 31 0 0 0 0 4 213 2 0 427 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 31 0 0 0 18 36 713 24 35 428 12 9 11 31 5 4 4 63 41 63 41 7 4 1 30 0 0 0 0 25 5 3 654 38 0 0 0 0 4 231 2 0 458 0 0 0 237 0 0 30 15 29 0 0 18 9 0 0 0 3 2 7 11 0 0 0 4 35 11 3 6 1 0 0 0 8 20 7 2 3 2 17 0 29 1 17 4 8 2 36 713 54 50 457 12 9 29 40 5 4 4 66 43 70 52 7 4 1 34 35 11 3 6 26 5 3 654 46 20 7 2 3 6 248 2 29 459 17 4 8 239 Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Nowland Farm Rd Spear St 2024 Build PM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road NorthNew Road North New Road Deerfield Dr New Road NorthSpear St New Road Deerfield Dr New Road North Old Cross Rd Old Cross Rd New Road New Road NorthSpear St Spear St Project PM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd New Road North Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd New Road NorthSpear St New Road North Spear St 2024 No Build PM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road Nowland Farm Rd Spear St Other Development PM Peak Hour Trips Dorset St 219 Deerfield Dr Old Cross Rd Spear St New Road North New Road Spear St 2024 Background PM Peak Hour Dorset St New Road North Nowland Farm Rd P:\2018\18057\Turnfig.xlsx, 12/6/2018 Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C-1 Spear St / Nowland Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C-2 Dorset St / Nowland Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C-3 Nowland Farm Rd / Project street Intersection Capacity Analyses Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C-4 Dorset St / Project street Intersection Capacity Analyses MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH & JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Date: October 30, 2018 To: Marla Keene, PE, Development Review Planner Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP, Director of Planning & Zoning Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Georges Jacquemart Contact Information: T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494 E. G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Review of Traffic Impact Assessment for Dorset Meadows Application The purpose of this memorandum is to review the September 14, 2018 Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson (L&D) for the proposed Dorset Meadows development proposed in the southwest quadrant of the Dorset Street/Nowland Farm Drive intersection. We believe the traffic impact analysis generally presents the impacts in a realistic manner. The traffic generation estimates are reasonable. It is probably not realistic that all southbound traffic will use Dorset Street as opposed to Spear Street. We expect that a few of the residential units located on Nowland Farm Drive or near it will decide to drive to and from the south or southwest (Shelburne, Charlotte, etc) via Spear Street instead Dorset Street. It appears that L & D projects future background design-hour traffic volumes (DHV) for the key intersections based on turning movement counts undertaken in August 2018 and adjusted according to VTrans DHV charts. The explanation for footnote 1 relating to the DHV Charts is missing and should be added. It is surprising to see that the 2019 and 2024 peak-hour background volumes used for the impact calculations are less than the August 2018 count. L & D should review the assumptions related to the design-hour traffic (30th highest hour of the year) to ascertain that the counts undertaken on a Thursday in August should not be used as the DHV, given that there is a significant number of summer days that would have similar or higher counts as the ones undertaken on a Thursday in August. This may justify a recalculation of the 2024 PM peak-hour traffic conditions at the two major intersections. The traffic volume diagrams in Appendix B are easy to follow except that for the project generated traffic there are some flow numbers that do not seem to add up or make sense. For example, there are 15 project vehicle trips making a right turn from Dorset SB onto Nowland Farm Drive in the PM peak hour, but there are only 11 vehicles turning left into the project drive. In addition there are 2 vehicles on westbound Nowland Farm Drive that do not seem to be related to the project. We suspect that these apparent discrepancies are related to the 20 units located on Nowland Farm Drive. L & D should add the 20 units as one generator driveway on Nowland Farm Drive so that the traffic movements generated by the project and shown in the diagrams are logical. The analysis concludes that both project driveways will operate at good LOS conditions (A or B), that the Nowland Farm Drive approach to Dorset Street will operate at LOS C and the Nowland Farm Drive approach to Spear Street will operate at LOS F for left turns in the PM peak hour (that may limit the SB flows onto Spear Street from this project during the PM peak hour). As traffic flows increase at this location, intersection improvements will need to be considered. The project driveways are located adequately on both Nowland Farm Drive and on Dorset Street, and are not expected to interfere with the queuing at the intersection of Nowland Farm Drive/Dorset Street, unlike the existing Old Schoolhouse Road that is about 275 feet from Dorset Street. MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Review of Traffic Impact Assessment for Dorset Meadows Application October 30, 2018 Page 2 When the intersections of Nowland Farm Drive with Spear Street and Dorset Street get upgraded, consideration should be given to single-lane roundabouts not only for their great safety performance, but also for the fact that they may allow the elimination of certain left-turn movements at nearby driveways. For instance, a roundabout at Nowland Farm Drive and Spear Street could eliminate left-turns out of the Overlook park lot and replace them with a right-turn and U-turn through the roundabout. Similarly, the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Nowland Farm Drive and Dorset Street together with the addition of a driveway from Old Schoolhouse Road onto Dorset Street could resolve the proximity issue of the Old Schoolhouse drive by changing both driveways to right- turns-in and right-turns-out only and using the roundabout for the left-turn movements. Please let us know if you have any questions. T.J. Boyle Associates | 301 College Street • Burlington VT 05401 | www.tjboyle.com DORSET MEADOWS - LANDSCAPE BUDGET Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Costs Landscape Percent of Total Construction / Improvement Cost Cost of Proposed Project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $135,587 Total Minimum Landscaping* $148,087 *Project cost used to calculate the landscape budget is $14,058,750, which includes construction of 20 duplexes ($250,00 per unit), 35 townhomes ($150,000 per unit), and 6,925 L.F. of roadway ($550/L.F). OPINION OF POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COST Total Buildings Cost per Building Total Potential Cost Typical Duplex Foundation Planting 10 $1,500 $15,000 Typical Townhouse Foundation Planning 8 $2,800 $22,400 Townhome Surrounding Area Plantings - - $80,000 Duplex Surrounding Areas Plantings - - $33,500 Total: $150,900 ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COSTS Street Trees (Total Site) $245,000 Other Greenspace Areas and Stormwater Pond Buffer Areas $81,500 Small Typical Single Family Lot (per unit) $2,100 Large Typical Single Family Lot (per unit) $2,700 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: Marla Keene, PE, City of South Burlington Development Review Planner and Staff Liaison to the Development Review Board FROM: Ashley Parker, City Project Manager and Staff Liaison to the Bike & Pedestrian Committee SUBJECT: Committee Recommendations re: the Dorset Meadows Project DATE: November 15, 2018 This memo is in response to the Development Review Board’s (DRB) request that the Bike & Pedestrian Committee meet with the applicant for the Dorset Meadows project and provide recommendations for the project back to the DRB. The Committee met with the applicant, Bryan Currier and Peter Kahn, at its meeting on November 15, 2018, and provided the following feedback to the DRB’s questions. 1. Review walking path layout and surface treatments. The Committee agreed with the current recommended surface treatment for greenspace paths, which is Shur Pac (fine gravel). 2. Should there be a path connecting from Trillium Street to Dorset Street? The Committee requested that the 5’ sidewalk from Elderberry to Dorset along Trillium be changed to a 10’ rec path. The Committee requested that the Recreation Impact Fees resulting from this project be applied to the South Dorset Street Shared Use Path project. 3. Should there be a pedestrian beacon across Dorset Street? The Committee recommends that a beacon be placed at the Dorset Street crossing once the South Dorset Street Shared Use Path is completed. The Committee requests that the funding for this crossing come out of the project’s Rec Impact Fees. 4. Should there be pedestrian crossings on Nowland Farm Road? The Committee recommends that there should be crosswalks in two proposed locations with pedestrian crossing signage. 5. Question re: the swapping of units 107a&b and 108a&b with a multi-family building with a single shared driveway. The Committee did not have any input on the design changes associated with this question. 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov After the Committee reviewed each of the DRB’s questions and discussed them with the project representatives, Catherine Frank made a motion to approve the Committee’s recommendations as noted above. The motion was seconded by Bob Britt, and it was then approved by all with no abstainers. If you have any questions about the Committee’s feedback and responses to the DRB’s questions, please let me know. Recreation and Parks Committee Meeting November 19, 2018 Notes from Dorset Meadow PUD Presentation DRB Review: Dorset Meadows: Guests Peter Kahn, Mike Buscher The Committee reviewed Documents provided by Marla Keene: DRB Memo of April, 2018, Plan Package of maps, and Charge from Marla Keene of November 7th. The charge to Recreation & Parks Committee is to review the PUD for open space, conservation, and amenities within the residential development. The developers reviewed the maps projected on the screen. Items of particular interest: • Walking trails will connect the open space to Underwood Park nearby. • Developers identified specific park spaces. In addition to the open green space in the lower right of the map: Two reflective “pause” places with benches and along a path (along southeastern edge of plans), playground on the side of the main park area that would include benches, and connected green space corridors throughout the development. • Recreation paths would be a sure pack base. • The open field area on south west corner of lot would allow for pick-up games (not striped or an official playing field). • The siting of a major street would enable residents to enjoy a view of Camels Hump. • Boulders excavated on site (left by the glaciers) will provide some buffering and natural playground. • HOA would continue to maintain all proposed park spaces and equipment. Committee noted that the condos (Multi-family units in the upper right of the map) were somewhat isolated in their location and connectivity to the other areas of the development. These are adjacent to an area of wetland, and connective paths would require considerable addition of structures that would possibly disturb the wetlands. Committee noted that Stone Hedge, for example, included a variety of amenities. Committee discussed whether additional amenities should be added such as a basketball court, pickle ball court. Recreation and Parks Committee recommends: • The Committee supports the recommendations that were made by staff and outlined in the memo from Marla Keene on November 7th. • That developer review proposed Open Space Matrix that will be used for future PUD growth. The matrix offers a menu of types of park space and recreation equipment that might be included in different types of development. • As the neighborhood develops, residents may form consensus on future amenities. The HOA might contribute to building these. • The Committee recommends consideration of potential option to add a dog park. APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-1 Plaza/Square Green Pocket/Mini Park Neighborhood Park Playground Outdoor Café/ Restaurant Seating Sun Terrace Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Enhanced Wooded Area/Nature Park Community Shared Garden Space Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones) All FBC Districts; UDO district All districts except FBC T5 All districts All districts except FBC T5 All districts All districts which permit restaurant (or similar dining) use All buildings having 3 or greater stories; residential buildings must have a minimum of 12 units. FBC T4 and FBC T5; Any non- residential or mixed use building in UDO. All districts All FBC District; PUD (type TBD)All districts. Description & Service Intent Primarily hard-surface space. Intended to serve public, allowing people to congregate, sit, walk, or access adjacent businesses. Should be context-sensitive. Informal and centralized public, civic space or common/shared private space for residential use or campus-style development. Small open area. May be tucked adjacent to or between buidlings, or adjacent to roadway. on a separate lot or portion of a lot.. Intended to primarily serve public or residents within 1/4 mile radius. Park intended to serve immediate neighborhood and those within 1/4- 1/2 mile radius. Shall have several different elements of play and leisure, which may include athletic fields or courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, pump tracks, skating facilities, and similar. Programmed space and/or structure that serves the active recreational needs of children in the immediate vicinity. An open-air seating area provided by a restaurant located on the subject or adjoining property, where restaurant patrons can eat or drink Accessible and open area on upper story with seating and gathering amenities. Interior open space where at least one wall facing the street consists entirely of glass. Common Open Space area on a portion of a lot. Naturally occuring area with predominance of canopy trees with enhancement and public access. Land set aside and maintained for production of food to be used primarily for participating gardeners. Size Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. Residential: 0.25-2 acres; Campus- style Development: 0.5-3 acres. 2,000-10,25,000 sq. ft.Minimum 0.5 acres Total play area shall be a minimum of 2400 square feet. Play space should include a buffer area around any play structures. Minimum 100 sq. ft.500-3,000 sq.ft; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft. Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted as qualifying open space shall not exceed twice the area of the glass wall projected onto the floor plane. 5,000-20,000 sq. ft.2,500 sq. ft. minimum; Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and no more than 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Minimum 400 square feet. Encouraged to serve at least 20% of units in multifamily developments. Location & Access Outdoors and within Public Realm. High Visibility from public rights of way. Accessible from a public street at grade or 3' above or below street level connected to street with wide, shallow stairs. May include space for a farmer's market For residential: Centralized; Accessible to all tenants/residents via pedestrian walkway or direct frontage (cottage court development). For campus-style development: Centralized; Accessible from a public right-of- way via direct walkway; Access from several locations encouraged. Fronts on and is accessed from a street right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible. Must be open to the public. Must be pedestrian accessible (sidewalks or paths). Some provision for public vehicle parking. Should be located such that it is accessible to a majority of users. Accessible from Public Right-of- Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be centrally located and visually accessible to the greatest extent practicable. Highly visible, directly adjacent to public right of way. See additional public realm standards below. Second floor or above. Encourage location in places which have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. For T5 Non-Residential, must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators. Building interior adjacent to sidewalk or public open space. Direct access from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer) or four sides (inner) Must be accessible, at minimum, by residents, tenants, or customers of site. Must be onsite. Offsite wooded areas shall not be considered qualifying open space even where the LDR permit open space to be located off-site. May not be located in any class wetland or wetland buffer. Shall have proper drainage. Seating*, Tables, Etc. Minimum one seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of plaza area. Minimum 10 seats. Seating is encouraged to be of a variety of types, high quality, and socially oriented. Provide formal and informally arranged seating, on sculptured lawn. Moveable chairs desirable. Three seats per quarter acre, rounded up. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. Shall have signage in accordance with City sign deisgn guidelines. Must provide benches or formal seating areas at one space for each 500 square feet, rounding up, as well as at least 200 square feet of level, grassed, informal seating. Seating material shall be of moderate to high quality in order for café space to be considered qualifying open space. One seating space for every 50 sq.ft. of terrace area. Provide one seat for every 100 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 10 3. Light enhancement expected. Must include improvements, including cleared paths and benches. None required. Landscaping, Design- Landscape is secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition. Shall include attractive paving material or pattern to create unique space. Encouraged use of lush, dense plant material. Shall incorporate art, sculpture and/or water feature. Provide lush landscape setting with predominantly lawn surfaces and planting such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers. Canopy trees should provide substantial shade. Turf and landscape plantings. to Should promote shade over at least 25% a portion of the area. Shall offer areas of open grassed field as well as some shaded seating areas. Integration with natural environment encouraged. Features for wildlife encouraged, including pollinators, bird feeders, and bat houses. Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for articulation of space to compliment active play ingredients encouraged. Flat paved or concrete area for wheeled toys encouraged. Paved areas including space for basketball or other sport courts are encouraged and may be counted towards minimum required area of qualifying open space. Shade shall be provided in consultation with the Recreation Director. For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes of interesting patterns of plants, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. Terrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Planted roofs are permitted provided area is also a functional seating space. Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. If paved, area shall be amended throughout with substantial planted areas or large planters of trees and lush greenery. If grassed, area should be articulated at perimeter with lush greenery. Majority of area must be covered with canopy trees. Light enhancement expected. Must include cleared paths, benches, and/or other amenities. Must have adequate planting soils, tested for pH balance, drainage, nutrients, etc. (proof provided prior to Certificate of Occupancy). Where they are inadequate, soils shall be amended for more suitable farming. Shall have water service directly to gardens. Raised planters or other semi-permanent infrastructure encouraged. Commerical Services, Food 20% of space may be used for restaurant/cafe seating, taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. Not permitted Permitted but not counted towards open space requirement. Permitted but not counted towards open space requirement. May serve as seating area for adjacent restaurant/food service, or be space provided for those bringing their own meals. Dependent on Transect, may possibly be used up to 100% for commercial food services. See Table 8-1. 30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted Not permitted.Not permitted. Sunlight and Wind Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Shelter from wind. No requirements No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Mix of sun and shade. Sunlight encouraged to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. No requirements No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Encouraged to be south-facing. Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day. No requirements Full sunlight. Other Shall include minimum components:3 low child-sized swings; 1 toddler sized swing; 2 slides; one or more play houses. Plan shall be established and submitted to ensure continual use and maintenance of trails and benches, whether by residents, association, property owner or property manager. Plan shall be established and submitted to ensure continual use and maintenance of the gardens, whether by residents, association, property owner or property manager. Shall include added ammenities attractive for play by toddlers and young children. Creativity in design strongly encouraged. STAFF NOTE_ still in progress Notes: Seating dimensions: *Required dimensions for one seating space or one seat are as follows: Height: 12" to 36"; ideally 17"; must allow user to bend knees and have feet below knees Depth: 14" one-sided; 30-36" double-sided Width: 30" of linear seating are counted as one seat Materials All products installed in qualifying open spaces shall be of high quality materials intended to be used for commercial application. South Burlington Land Development Regulationsdraft APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-2 Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones) Description & Service Intent Size Location & Access Seating*, Tables, Etc. Landscaping, Design- Commerical Services, Food Sunlight and Wind Other Notes: Seating dimensions: Materials Rain Garden Snippet/ Parklet Pedestrian Pass Streetfront Open Space Enhanced or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area Private Yard Space Dog Walk and Play Area Community Center Pool Facility/ Locker Room Swimming Pool, Athletic Courts & Fields Municipal Building FBC T4 and FBC T5 FBC T4 and FBC T5 All districts FBC T-3 and T3+ as noted in Table 8- 1 All residential districts. PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit A shallow depression planted with native plants that captures rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas. Small sitting area intended to provide respite between or adjacent to buildings. May serve general public, employees, residents, or customers. Narrow pedestrian right of ways that cut through blocks in residential and/or commercial areas. Liner open space area to secondary streets, as permitted per the Regulations. An existing wetland buffer or new stormwater treatment area which offers public amenities that exceed those minimimally necessary for water resource management. Private yard space associated with residential units fenced dog play areas in private and public spaces; separate spaces for sm and lg dog Indoor gathering space for residents/employees.U sed for recreational, socal, educational, health, cultural or similar activities. Structure associated with pools, tennis courts, or other recreational areas. Swimming pool, tennis, basketball, or similar athletic courts. Could include library or municipal meeting space Maximum size of 3,500 sf; shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. 500-3,000 sq. ft 8' minimum width; 24' maximum width. 50' minimum depth from closest public street line; or if private, 50' minimum depth from edge of pavement or sidewalk as applicable. Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. As directed by minimum requirements. 1/4 acre minimum size. The garden should be positioned near a runoff source like a downspout, driveway or sump pump to capture rainwater runoff and stop the water from reaching the sewer system. Must be directly adjacent to public right of way and sidewalk or building entry. Designers are encouraged to consider safety in design. No vehicular traffic. Must connect two public streets. Storefronts and restaurants are highly encouraged to access the pedestrian pass. If in FBC districts, must be immediately adjacent to qualifying secondary street. See Chapter 8 for additional regulations. Must be on each side of roadway, unless a complying building is located on the opposite side. Must be visible to public or tenants and users of building. Direct pedestrian access from adjacent public street type. Directly adjacent to and accessible to at least one entry of dwelling unit it is associated with. Accessible to residents. Encouraged to be separated from ground floor residential units. The space must serve as a visual amenity which can be enjoyed through paths or seating. Adjacent seating, proportionate with the size of the garden and number of users, intended to enhance the garden is are required and can be counted as part of the required open space. Seating shall be the main focus of the space; it shall be present year-round and of medium to high quality materials. Fixed seating is encouraged. One seating space for each 150 sq.ft. Seating is encouraged, but there shall be no minimum requirement. If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, benches,and/or stairs. No requirements. Benches required. Minimum seating for 6. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Indoor centers should provide lounge or table seating. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Deep rooted native plants and grasses. Landscaping shall also be a primary component of the space. Because the space is inherently small, it shall be landscaped in a higher proportion than larger spaces. Landscaping should not interfere with seating, but should instead complement it.Spaces should appear warm and inviting. If paved, area shall provide trees or large potted plants at no more than 530 foot intervals. If grassed, area shall be accented with intermittent trees or public art. Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to distract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. LID techniques; no fencing permitted. No requirements.Land scaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Fenced. Sloped; larger areas for longer runs; effective drainage; Natural agility & play structures encouraged. Not permitted.40% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted.Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter from wind. No requirements. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Exterior to building. Some natural or built shelter from sun or inclement weather Access to sunshine encouraged. See LID language for additional standards. Separate travelled way from parking areas; shall create pedestrian environment. Must be located on applicant- owned property. No requirements.Landscaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Civic Use Types with Corresponding Spaces (Meets Civic Use Requirment in certain PUD types) Minimum and maximum total footage requirements based on PUD type. May consist of mix of civic types. Shall be open to use by residents or employees. May be restricted to residents/employees or open to the public. Should be located within the PUD so as to be generally equally accessible to all users. South Burlington Land Development Regulationsdraft Memo To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: South Burlington Natural Resources Committee Re: Dorset Meadows Project Dated: December 14, 2018 The Natural Resources Committee (NRC) would like to bring to the attention of the Development Review Board, our ability and responsibility to provide relevant perspective on the natural resources that exist within our South Burlington community. Our NRC has identified and adopted 5 priority areas in our work-plan that encompass various aspects of our community’s natural resources: • “Tree stewardship” • “Management of Non-Native Invasive Species” • “Habitat connectivity” • “Conservation of aquatic resources” • “Conservation of agricultural resources” These priorities reflect our community’s inherent assets, often overlooked or under-valued, leaving them vulnerable to changes, good or bad, intended or not. The South Burlington Comprehensive Plan reflects the values and vision of our community and should assist in the creation and implementation of zoning for how development can be welcomed and not resisted. While development is inevitable, the loss of our natural communities and open spaces are also a loss of our past identity as a farming community. The NRC has the ability to be the conscience reminding us all of these things. At the NRC’s last meeting, committee members were informed about the proposed Dorset Meadows development, which is located in a “primary conservation area”. Members expressed concern and frustration for the fact that, unlike other city committees, the NRC was not invited to provide perspective on the possible impact of development in an area that possesses a great amount of natural resources. We are aware that it is “late” in the process to comment on the Dorset Meadows project. However, the NRC believes it is imperative to share our initial concerns and questions. We also request that the NRC be provided with an opportunity to express its comments in more detail. • Wetland buffers and classifications: • When was the wetland last assessed for classification? • It is not evident the “overlay” map matches Map 7 in the Comprehensive Plan. • Are the proposed structures adequately located away from the wetland buffer? • Wildlife connectivity: • What information exists in city/state? • When was it last inventoried? • Has the development taken into account impacts to the connectivity required by both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife? • Development of a road: • What type of road is planned? • Were alternative locations or the need for a road considered when designing Trillium, in an attempt to minimize impacts to the wetlands off Dorset Street? • Forested area: • How will the development affect the forested land to the south and west? • Is a management plan being required so that we know how the open space areas, including the large 70+ acre space, are going to be managed long-term and by whom? • Are there plans to remove trees? • How does this align with “vision” in Comp Plan to increase tree canopy? Once again, the NRC requests the DRB determine the most effective way that the NRC serve as a resource in its work to review proposed developments. Respectfully, Elizabeth Milizia South Burlington Natural Resources Committee 1 Marla Keene From:Michael Mittag <mittag.michael@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:08 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:1505 Dorset Street #SD-18-23 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC Dear Chairman Miller. With reference to Continued sketch plan application #SD-18-23 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC During the public comment and question period at the August 7, 2018 DRB Meeting I inquired about how the Board would use it's discretion in approving or rejecting an applicant’s request for TDR-based density when there are competing interests involved. There was not time for the Board to answer my question at this meeting so I am posing it again. I this case you will need to weigh the competing interest of the developer vs the interests of abutting property owners and a large number of neighbors (some 57 citizens) whose quality of life would be affected by the proposed density of 161 units. Knowing that several residents have formally requested that the DRB reject the TDR-based density increase; what will be the criteria the DRB will use to decide this issue? Kind regards, Michael Mittag Swift Street South Burlington