HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_Wheeler_Pub Comments Combined_2020-06-021
Marla Keene
From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 12:14 PM
To:Paul Conner
Cc:Marla Keene
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: 550 Park Rd. Proposal
Thank you, Paul.
Very much appreciated.
John
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:48 AM Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for taking the time to write. I reviewed our tentative schedule and to date, no application (other than the
sketch plan heard on Jan 22) has been received. So, to answer your question, next week’s DRB hearing will not include
this project. And because of public hearing warnings, I can also confirm that if we do receive an application, it will not
be heard until at least May.
I have copied Marla Keene, our Development Review Planner, on this so that she can read it as part of her review and
provide to the Board if and when an application is submitted.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Conner, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
2
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4106
www.sbvt.gov
Notice ‐ Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e‐mail, e‐mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in
matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as
public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message
in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:40 AM
To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: 550 Park Rd. Proposal
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good morning, Paul.
I dropped you a line yesterday and thought it might be best to give you my two concerns about the proposal as
understood. I'm not sure if there is a good way for me to participate in the discussion once this proposal appears on
you agenda, thus this message.
Please understand, I'm not fighting to stop the project. I only want to make it fit into the existing landscape.
1. Building height: I see that there are two single story homes at the top entrance, two along the first curve, and two
more by the bottom road entrance. That's nice, given visibility and view corridors, etc. However, I believe all the
homes on the east side of the road on the top entrance that border Dorset should also be single story buildings, as well
as the two by the same top entrance on the west side. Vision and views will be greatly obstructed without this
reduction.
The existing homes across the street, built a while ago, are all single story for this reason. No one wants to see two
story homes that close to Dorset St., nor do I as I travel on Park Rd. to and from my home on Golf Course Rd.
3
2. Traffic Patterns: Is there a reason why this proposal does not show an entrance further down Dorset St.? Why use
Park Rd.? Here's my concern. The top entrance lintersecton is a wind blown sheet of black ice most of the winter, or
covered with wind blown snow. It is very slick because that stretch of Park Rd. is exposed to the blowing snow. To
imagine vehicles stopping and turning into the new road and out onto Park Rd. without skidding is hard to see. That's a
dangerous first 100 yards of Park Rd., just where there does not need to be intersection.
Further, the lower entrance is at the bottom of an "S" curve hill, much steeper than shown on the sketch
plan. Everyone gains speed each way and negotiates the curves carefully. Again, to have an intersection at that point
could be dangerous as well. This winter, as in all winters, cars have ended up off the road there because they were
going too fast down the hill, either way, and skidded into the shoulder of grass or into the woods.
That's it, Paul. I'll visit the website to see how I can participate and present these two issues.
John Bossange
1
Marla Keene
From:Jennifer Catalano <jmcatalano@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:05 PM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:lightspd@comcast.net
Subject:EXTERNAL: Save the Large Oak Trees Near Park Rd from Destruction
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Marla,
Donna Leban brought to the attention of Front Porch Forum members the possibility of the destruction of several large
trees at the corner of Park Road and Dorset Street.
As a resident of the Butler Farms neighborhood, I am very well‐acquainted with those trees. They have provided shade
and beauty to many bikers and walkers over the years. I urge the DRB to protect these trees as construction on the
Wheeler Parcel moves forward.
The presence of trees on the Dorset street bike path is a huge part of what makes the path pleasant, cool and
hospitable. I urge the DRB to prioritize the protection of mature trees along the bike path and throughout the South
Burlington landscape.
Thank you,
Jennifer Catalano
22 Adirondack St.
South Burlington
Thank you to Donna for her message to Front Porch Forum, which I've copied below.
The DRB is hearing on June 2 a plan by Blackrock Construction to construct 32 new homes on the Wheeler Parcel, a
lovely piece of land at the corner of Dorset St and Park Rd. Those who have enjoyed the bike path in this area may have
noticed that there are many trees along ledge in the center of the site, which is otherwise largely open. One very large
white oak tree, nearly 30" in diameter and at least 75 feet tall, was not included in the developer's Tree Inventory Plan.
Two other very large trees on the site were also not properly noted. This inventory is a requirement of the City's
Planning and Zoning Dept in order to preserve large, specimen trees from destruction by development. I take this
exclusion as an attempt to skirt the city's requirement.
I am calling this it to the City's attention, as I hope many of you will also do, to help save these desirable trees and make
for a nicer residential area that includes mature trees.
The developers excuse for extensive tree removal is that regrading the site is needed to build homes there. As an
architect, I very much question this assertion as the site has a gentle natural grade except at the ledge. The developer
also has agreed to build a paved recreation path down the middle of the site, which will require a lot of regrading that
2
otherwise is unnecessary. Given that there are already recreation paths along 3 sides of the site, this additional path
would be redundant.
Please attend the DRB meeting by Zoom or write to Marla Keene at SB Planning and Zoning if you are concerned at the
wholesale destruction of our natural biomes by over‐zealous developers. If we are not heard, the trees will disappear.
1
Marla Keene
From:Jonathan Ebbers <jonathanebbers@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:53 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: protect trees
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Marla,
Please protect the trees on the Wheeler property. South Burlington has plenty of developments going up that are
shaping the landscape. Therefore, let's save these remaining old growth trees ‐ for the beauty of the city, for the
environment, and for future generations to enjoy.
Jonathan Ebbers
8 Butler Dr, South Burlington, VT 05403
1
Marla Keene
From:Rose Godard <rosesebring639@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:27 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: Trees on Park Rd
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi,
First I am opposed to the large scale development on such small acreage (6 acres does not seem adequate for the
density of the development. Why is such a large number of units being allowed? My count came up to 50+ units, way to
many!!!!
As well as SouthBurlington is losing a valuable view.
Also where will the entrance be onto Dorest St. As this development will greatly increase the traffic onto Park Rd.
That said, the old established trees need to be accounted for and not cut down!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your time and would like to know the current status of this application?
Rose Godard
639 Golf Course Rd
So. Burlington, VT
Sent from my iPhone
1
Marla Keene
From:Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:37 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: DRB review of Wheeler Parcel development
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Marla,
I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the review of the Wheeler parcel development that is being
reviewed by the DRB this Tuesday, June 2nd. I've enjoyed reading your comments. Quite thorough!
I'd like to comment on two items based pm the project description with your comments.
1. Page 12‐13 SEction D Landscape and Fence Buffer Standards. (2)a. Existing Vegetation.
If the applicant has provided an existing tree inventory plan, it would note that there are several very
significant, large, healthy trees along the line of the existing ledge in the center of the site. One
particular tree has a diameter of almost 30" and appears to be a white oak‐ not a common tree
anywhere, and particularly not in developments as they take such a long time to grow. This one is
probably 80' tall and is in spectacular condition, as its been protected within the ledge area along with
other trees and shrubs that provide excellent wildlife habitat. Its impossible to know where these trees
are related to the development of houses and other proposed infrastructure, as they are not specifically
called out on plans that I've seen. If such a plan does exist, can you please provide me with a copy of it?
Although the city asks that healthy trees be retained to the maximum extent possible, while
accommodating the permitted level of development, the developer has failed to note the locations of
the significant specimen trees on this site. Because of this lack of specificity, and not knowing exactly
how far to the east the first houses are located, the City appears to be leaving it up to the developer (or
the bulldozer operator) to determine which trees to save.
I'm asking that this particular tree‐ see photos that I will send in a separate email (because of the tree
size is hard to get in close up view) receive special protection. I would also ask that the City arborist
assist the developer in developing a specific plan to protect this tree. Any construction should not be
permitted within the drip line of this tree, and foundations of homes should be even farther
away. There are 2 or 3 other trees of similar size on the site, although the one farthest north is not in
great shape.
These trees and some of the mature vegetation will provide a valuable site amenity that no replanting of
landscaping could come close to providing in this area within 20 years. I'm also very concerned that
locating a paved recreation path in the vicinity of mature trees could also cause more harm than good,
and would advise elimination of hard paving in this area.
2
2. Is there a reference for developers to the exact specs for the recommended street lighting and poles? If so, where is
this noted? I've noted that several developers have used light fixtures that are not LED cutoff fixtures and are not the
city standard fixture. The City needs to make sure to protect its own future interests by specifying the proper lighting
standards, as have been provided in the new development along Hinesburg Rd, just north of Butler Farms. I understand
that Public Works holds the specs. Is there any reason they cannot be provided by City Planning and Zoning so it doesn't
get missed.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Donna Leban
‐‐
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802‐862‐1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
1
Marla Keene
From:Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 6:51 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: DRB review of Wheeler Parcel development
Hi Marla,
I see the tree inventory plan, and it does not document any of the 3 largest trees on this site. The particular oak I've
noted is at least 28" in diameter and somewhere in the area of units 31 and 32. A 12" oak is shown nearby, but this tree
is much larger than that.
For this reason, I question the accuracy of this plan, and would inquire about who did the field survey, and how they
located them on the site plan. The survey needs to be verified as accurate, with attention paid to the largest trees and
particularly the very large oak near the south end of the site.
The tree inventory plan also does not indicate which trees are to remain. With the significant regrading in the center of
the site, one could reasonably assume that none of them will remain after regrading is completed. This would not only
be a tragedy for the wonderful biome that currently exists, it would also cause many South Burlington residents to
question SB Planning and Zoning's and the DRB's ability to control the worst tendencies of unscrupulous developers.
I noted the comment earlier in the developer's report about the inability to save a large apple tree because of the
change in site gradients. It appears that much of the change in grade is to accommodate a recreation path that would
not have been suggested by the Bike & Ped Committee,as it is largely duplicating an existing parallel path but was
presented by the developer asking the Committee for approval.
I do plan to join the DRB meeting tomorrow with the goal of saving the big oak tree, and as many mature trees as
possible on this site, while allowing homes to be sited along with existing trees in ways that will enhance their
desirability.
Thank you for your time and for your attention to this matter.
Donna Leban
PS. I don't believe that the streetlight shown in the packet is the City's standard, unless it has changed without my
knowledge. I don't like the more flimsy 2‐support look of this fixture compared with the 4‐supports of the Lumec
Metroscape that has been used off of Hinesburg Rd.
On 6/1/2020 2:04 PM, Marla Keene wrote:
Hi Donna, thanks for your comments. I will share with the Board. The tree inventory plan is included in
the plans in the packet and shows how the existing trees relate to the proposed development. A tree
management plan is a requirement of final plat, which will specify which trees are to be retained.
2
Roads that are proposed to be accepted as public are required to meet the public works light fixture
standards. As you mention, those standards are not housed in P&Z but rather with DPW. This is
preliminary plat which is not the final review. DPW will communicate with them at final plat if the
appropriate City standard fixtures are not indicated.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846‐4106
From: Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:37 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: DRB review of Wheeler Parcel development
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Marla,
I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the review of the Wheeler parcel development that
is being reviewed by the DRB this Tuesday, June 2nd. I've enjoyed reading your comments. Quite
thorough!
I'd like to comment on two items based pm the project description with your comments.
1. Page 12‐13 SEction D Landscape and Fence Buffer Standards. (2)a. Existing Vegetation.
If the applicant has provided an existing tree inventory plan, it would note that there are
several very significant, large, healthy trees along the line of the existing ledge in the
center of the site. One particular tree has a diameter of almost 30" and appears to be a
white oak‐ not a common tree anywhere, and particularly not in developments as they
take such a long time to grow. This one is probably 80' tall and is in spectacular
condition, as its been protected within the ledge area along with other trees and shrubs
that provide excellent wildlife habitat. Its impossible to know where these trees are
related to the development of houses and other proposed infrastructure, as they are
not specifically called out on plans that I've seen. If such a plan does exist, can you
please provide me with a copy of it?
Although the city asks that healthy trees be retained to the maximum extent possible,
while accommodating the permitted level of development, the developer has failed to
note the locations of the significant specimen trees on this site. Because of this lack of
specificity, and not knowing exactly how far to the east the first houses are located, the
City appears to be leaving it up to the developer (or the bulldozer operator) to
determine which trees to save.
I'm asking that this particular tree‐ see photos that I will send in a separate email
(because of the tree size is hard to get in close up view) receive special protection. I
3
would also ask that the City arborist assist the developer in developing a specific plan to
protect this tree. Any construction should not be permitted within the drip line of this
tree, and foundations of homes should be even farther away. There are 2 or 3 other
trees of similar size on the site, although the one farthest north is not in great shape.
These trees and some of the mature vegetation will provide a valuable site amenity that
no replanting of landscaping could come close to providing in this area within 20
years. I'm also very concerned that locating a paved recreation path in the vicinity of
mature trees could also cause more harm than good, and would advise elimination of
hard paving in this area.
2. Is there a reference for developers to the exact specs for the recommended street lighting and
poles? If so, where is this noted? I've noted that several developers have used light fixtures that are
not LED cutoff fixtures and are not the city standard fixture. The City needs to make sure to protect its
own future interests by specifying the proper lighting standards, as have been provided in the new
development along Hinesburg Rd, just north of Butler Farms. I understand that Public Works holds the
specs. Is there any reason they cannot be provided by City Planning and Zoning so it doesn't get
missed.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Donna Leban
‐‐
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802‐862‐1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
‐‐
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802‐862‐1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz