Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-88-0000 - Supplemental - 0000 Quarry Hill RoadM E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: June 28, 1988 agenda items Date June 24, 1988 2) TWIN OAKS TENNIS CENTER, TWIN OAKS DRIVE 1. The location of the new parking lot is where the road was planned to continue. This plan was revised. The curbing across the entrance of the new parking lot should be installed to complete the street 3) BETLTER DEVELOPMENT, LOT #30, ETHAN ALLEN DRIVE 1. Sidewalk shall be continuous across driveway and shall be 8" thick. 2. Surface drainage shall be toward the swale to the south. 3. Any floor drains in garage area shall be connected to a grit and grease trap before the sanitary sewer. 4) USED CAR DEALER, 1150 WILLISTON ROAD 1. Site plan dated June 8, 1988 is acceptable. 5) QUARRY HILL DEVELOPMENT, BEHIND GAYNES 1. Road will discourage high speed travel, however, it will be dangerous even at the minimum speed of 25 m.p.h. 2. Another major intersection between Gaynes and East Terrace should be discouraged. The existing new entrance to Gaynes was constructed to accommodate this development. 1 M E M O IZ A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: May 17, 1988 agenda items Date: May 13, 1988 2) BROOKSIDE COMMONS, QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD 1. A sidewalk shall be constructed along Queen City Park Road. The State was willing to do this with the Southern Connector construction. However, after trying for a year to get a few feet of slope rights near the brook which the property owners refused to grant, the work was put on hold. 3) HOLIDAY INN POOL ADDITION, WILLISTON ROAD 1. The J.H.K. Williston Road study recommends widening along the north side of Williston Road (12 - 14 + feet). New plantings should not be placed within this area and a commitment made for this land when the intersection is improved. 2. The landscaped area along the Interstate ramp shall be maintained including cutting grass and weeds. 4) QUARRY HILL OFF WILLISTON ROAD 1. Another major intersection between East Avenue and the Gaynes-Sheraton entrance should not be allowed. Another entrance cuts the left turn stacking lane for the Sheraton and this development down to about 80 feet ( 4 cars) which is too short a length especially for the planned development and the approved expansion of the Sheraton. 2. It has always been the position of the City that access from Williston Road to this parcel be by the Gaynes entrance. At request of the Quarry Hill owners and at a cost to the City and State the Gaynes entrance was moved about 10 feet west after it, was partly completed. This was to improve the access around P & C. 1 Memorandum - Planning May 13, 1988 Page 3 4) CUPOLA GOLF COURSE PROPERTY, SOUTH OF GAYNES Ralph Deslauriers, Jr., proposes to develop the land behind lots that include the Synon lot discussed a few weeks ago and a redesign of the Burlington Tennis Club property. The property is zoned C-1, R-7 and R-4. This is a pre -sketch plan discussion requested by the applicant to bring some of the issues and proposals to the Commission for discussion and comment. Access: Access is shown from a 60 foot r.o.w. that travels from Spear Street (Quarry Hill Road) to a new major intersection between the Chittenden Bank and Spillanes. This new intersection is shown in the JHK traffic study for Williston Road and seems to be supported by Art Hogan. I have serious reservations as to how such an intersection will operate since the stacking lane for west bound traffic turning into this new street is likely to be very long. I can see where it will conflict with the on -coming left turns in to the Sheraton. A long stacking lane may also conflict with the operation of the Gaynes/Sheraton intersection by blocking the cars wanting to turn in and out of these businesses. Although I support a public street (rather than private driveways) to serve future development of this 26+ acre property, I am seriously concerned with the proposed Williston Road intersection. Other alternatives may include: 1) using a relocated Gaynes/Sheraton driveway by relocating P & C and moving the Sheraton driveway to the Texaco location. Obviously this involves tremendous cooperation which may be unrealistic although it could be beneficial to all the property owners involved; (see Bill's comments regarding this option). 2) Access across the back of the bank lot that feeds onto the northern most end of East Terrace. This may saturate that intersection; 3) Sole access from Spear Street. This seems to assume a more residential character of development rather than commercial as proposed. The new public street also runs across the backs of ten East Terrace properties. I do not advise surrounding these parcels on 2 sides by public streets, especially one as heavily- traveled as the proposed street will be. 3 Memorandum - Planning May 13, 1988 page 4 Setbacks: All new commercial development must. have a 65 foot setback from the R4 East Terrace properties and 40 feet from the new public street. Setbacks from the interstate must also be observed. Other: The Chittenden Bank lot is split by the new road. It is not clear what happens with the small piece of land behind Mobil. See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4 3 PLANNING 4%t tMISS,1 Q_ NOVEMB ,j6& 12Z6. 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tues4ar, �y November 16, 1976p, in 'the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 11�5 .Williston Road, MEMBERS PRESOT William Wessel, Chairman; James Ewing, Ernest Levesque, Frank Lidral, David Morency, Sidney Poger, Kirk Woolery MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Bonnie Fahey, Richard Bruce, Wm. Schuele, Marshall McBean, Richard Farnham, Jean McBean The meeting was opened at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Wessel. Minutes of November 2 Li2z6 It was noted that on page 6 in the paragraph on Planning Commission priorities, the words in line 5 and slow down the runoff should be changed to and create green belts. It was moved by Mr. Ewing and seconded by Mr. Levesque to accept the Minutes of November 2, 1976, with the above noted change. Motion was voted unanimously. Subdivision applications of Horizon -Heights and Cupola Golf Course, Inc. Mr. Page explained there were two applications. one from Cupola Golf Course to subdivide their land, and another from Milot and Bruce to develop 11. acres. Mr. Poger said he had thought it was to be considered a'single parcel in order to get the road approved. Mr. Page said that was really a technicality. The subdivision would not be approved unless it were on the 39 acres. The 11 acre lot is new and the creation of that lot has to be approved by the Planning Commission. There were two applicants; one, the owner of the property being subdivided into two lots; the other, the party developing that lot being set off. Mr. Poger referred to the motion prepared by Mr. Page for approval for the Horizon Heights Apartment proposal, saying that nowhere does it say the road must be upgraded to City standards. If anybody else comes in, Quarry Hill would have to bring it up to City standards. Mr. Page explained this was covered under Section `9 of the motion. In the motion prepared for Cupola Golf Course approval, Chairman Wessel questioned the use of the words "are waived" in Section 4 because he thought the monuments and lot markers had already been deleted. Mr. Page explained it was correct as written because the monuments and lot markers are permanent. The things which had been excluded were the temporary lot markers. 2. K.ANNI:NC COMMISSION NOVEMBFR 16 A1Q76 Chairman Wessel then asked if Section 2 of the Cupola motion should say by whom the road should be upgraded. Mr. Page explained it would be a situation where the buyer would come in and develop it or the price could be adjusted and quarry Hill would do it. Mr. Poger said it was really not the business of the Planning Commission who does it. Mr. Morency felt the City might be left with the task of making a new owner upgrade the road. Mr. Poger explained that by voting approval of the road to be brought up to City standards the Commission has already decided the Cupola or the developer will bring it up to City standards. Mr. Morency asked if traffic had been resolved for the remaining lot. of 29 acres, Mr. Poger said the Commission had stated it would not allow commercial development to take place with access through that residential area, so if It was developed commercially it would have to have some other access. They have been warned that by allowing residential development they have precluded their option of having something other than housing in that area unless they find some other access. Mr. Wessel said he thought it was the responsibility of the Planning Com- mission to rezone the rest of the property. Mr. Poger said the thought had been that this would be commercial and have some other access. There might be some possibility of Cupola working with Caynes. But if they have land locked themselves. he didn't think they would come to the Planning Commission. He felt the point had been made very clearly to both the developer and to Mrs. DesLaurlers that the zone could be changed. Mr. Wessel asked about the pedestrian trail along the Interstate. Mr. Page referred to Section 3 in his motion and added that the layout of the trail is not going to change the layout of the property. Mr. Schuele said in two or three years this could be very difficult unless It was spelled out now. regarding access to the remaining 28 acres, Mx. Poger suggested adding a Section 7 to the prepared motion for approval of Cupola Golf Course, Inc. subdivision to read: The followigagreements wMe made in discussion_ between the Cupola Golf Course, Inc.. Horizon Heights, and the Planning Commission that further development of the 28 acres zoned commercial shall not have access through the residential neiahbnrhnnd_ ilnlsaa f„rah .V+ access is found, the Planning Commission expects those 28 acres tq be developed as a residential area. The members of the Commission agreed to this addition. Mr. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the major subdivision known as Horizon Heights, consisting of 77 two bedroom apartment units as shown on the plan entitled "Site Plan for Horizon Heights." dated 9 306 and revised 106. drawn by Vaughn C. Button, sll ect to the following stipulations: 1. All land presently zoned CO on this plat shall be maintained by the owner, and specifically reserved for open space and recreational purposes. 2. The final plat shall include the following changes to the • Preliminary plats bearings of property lines and parcel acreage, location of monuments, number of units in each N0VFYBER 16. 19Z-6 3 PLANNING COMMISSION building, the depiction of preliminary plat information in two or more separate sheets for greater legibility, utility easements shall be designated, public easements for pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be added, additional pedestrian access to the north property line and around buildings 1, 2. 4, and 5 (materials to be specified), show outdoor lighting, describe ant the schedule for phasing of construction, clarify the agweem on use of the open space by Cupola Golf Course, Inc., ider curb radius at both ends of the emergency exit shall be shown (see W.J.S.). 3, The applicant ofalwith andthe bikeNatural path easements.Committee on the layoutpedestrian 4. Access for pedestrians and cyclists shall be provided and main- tained to the Fast Terrace cul-de-sac* and physical barriers to vehicular traffic through this area shall be installed. 5• A detailed plantings plant showing the landscaping around all lng structures and toothetissuanee Interstate, ofany shall be sbuildingperubmitted anmits- approved prior 6. The southern boundary Uof the iparty cel V shall be established in cooperation with the 7. Stoxm drainage shall not be diverted directly onto lands of the University of Vermont. 8. Water lines are to be "looped", for fire protection purposes according to the requirements of the City Water Department. 9. With the exception of streets, all improvements required under the City,s subdivision regulations shall be installed according to all applicable Uty standards of design and con- struction. The roadway serving the project shall be upgraded to City design and construction standards, except for curbs, fros Spear Street to the primary entrance to the prg l�tremain balance of the roadway, known as Quarry Hill Road, as is, and be maintained by the Cupola Golf Course, Inc. 10. This approval is based upon positive findings reached by the planning Commission under the following eriterias a) site plan review (review of detailed plantings deferred)@ b) the general and specific standards of a Residential PUD, c) right of way approval under Section 11.70 of the Zoning Regulations, d) major subdivision. 0 4. I PLANNING COMMISSION NovEMBER 16 L1976 ® The motion was seconded by Mr. Morcncy and voted unanimously for approval, Mr. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning C;ommisslon Er preliminary approval to the subdivision of the lands of Cupola Golf Course, Inc,, into two lots of 11 acres and 28 acres_, as partially 1. All lands owned by Cupola Golf Course, Inc., presently zoned C-O shall be restricted, maintained, and reserved for open space and recreational purposes. 2. "Quarry Hill Road" so-called, shall be fully upgraded to City dosign and construction standards in the event of: a) additional subdivision, or, b) substantial further development. 3. The applicant shall deed to the City utility easements of appropriate width for municipal water and sewer lines. 4. All required improvements, as enumerated in the City's subdivision regulations (Section 301.1), are waived, with the exception of monuments and lot markers. 5. The lots shall be numbered with acreage, bearings, distances, and location of corner markers shown on the final plat. 6. This approval is based upon positive findings reached by the Commission under the followint criteria: a) right of way approval (Section 11.35 of the zoning regulations, b) major subdivision. 7. The following agreements were made in discussion between the Cupola Golf Course, Inc., Horizon Heights, and the Planning Commission that further development of the 28 acres zoned commercial shall not have acoess through the residential neighborhood, Unless further access is found, the Planning Commission expects those 28 acres to be developed as a residential area. This motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Page explained that once the final plat is submitted he will warn for public hearing on the final plat approval. Mr. Bruce explained their problem is financing and they are going to need site plan approval to,finanee by the 23rd, next week. The bank will request site plan approval and they had told the bank they would • nt PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16E 19Z6 probably get'site plan approval upon the submission of their final plat. A landscape architect is doing a layout for them right now, and there are several other small things to be incorporated into the site plan, Mr. Poger felt a copy of the motion just approved should be sufficient for the bank. Mr. Bruce said the bank gets really serious when they start putting up money and they don't want to see any avenues left open where they would be holding the bag. The Chairman said the Commission could not give complete site plan review until the landscaping plan is seen. Mr. Bruce said they did sign up to an end date of November 23rd and that is the real problem. This has to do with Mrs. DesLauriers' assessment. Discuss Zoning Amendments -- deletion or modification of references on the eompostion of the Zoning Board of Add stment The Chairman explained that Council was asking for the deletion of 14.10 on page 34 of the zoning regulations which refers to the composition of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Discussion took place on the reasons for changing the number of members. It was noted that this is covered under Title 24 which requires not less than three nor more than nine members. The Chairman said he would call Mr. Farrar and find outexactly what Council wants. Mr. Poger moved that the Planning Commission recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance Section 14.10 under Article XIV b�.�removi�the words ` "five'`an �ach,`in the second sentence of the section, and recommend that this be warned for public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Lidral and voted unanimously. Mr. Page is to contact Atty. Spokes on this. Mr. Poger said one of the problems the Board has is that it is perceived as a business oriented board and not sensitive to the interests of the public at large. one of the ways that could be overcome would be to increase the number of members. Mr. Schuele said the hours of meeting should be changed. The Board can still ignore it legally but it doesn't hurt to tell them. They have been requested before but chose to ignore it. Mr. Poger said the questign is that access be there and five o'clock is a bad time. Mr. Poger moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Board consist qfseven members for Areaterpubl1c rtici- pation, for easeinjaWng„a quote and further that the Commission recommend& that the a2ning Board return to after -dinner meetings_ Seconded by Mr. Ewing, Mr. Morency questioned the members being on for 11 or 12 years. He said the Council has recourse but from what he has heard they probably can't find anyone to serve, so what is the good of adding two more members. Mr. Poger said if there are two new positions, there would be more appli- cants, and: he would hope that when the Board is expanded Council would go out and rec I-V the people, preferably people who have larger arena of background, not people just involved in law or business. He would hope I.., -V u oMM s rox .MARCH,22, 1977 e`e The South Burlington PlanningCommissionheld a regular meeting on luesday, March 22, 1977 in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. Members Present William Wessel, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, Sidney Poger, Kirk Woolery, dames Nwing Member Abs David Morency Otbers Present Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Richard Bruce, Jerry Myler, Ralph DesLaurisr, lairs. DesLaurier, Richard Thomas, Judson Babcock, Michael Ryue,' 4im Holbrook, Richard Bingham, Mr. and Mre. Laurence Lenillee Mr. Pierson, Ralph Veve, Paul Simms, Bill Sehuele, Bill Duff, Walt Platteborse, Free Press Reading of Minutes of March 8. 1977 and March 15 1977 In the Minutes of March 8, 1977, the following is to be added to stip- ulation 10 on page 2: The right of ray along the southerly line shall be reserved, in an appropriate manner, for a potential future city street. In the Minutes of March 15, the following is to be added at the top of page 3: The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed unanimously. Mr. Poger then moved that the Planning Commission accept the Minutes of March 8. 1977 and March 15, 1977, as corrected. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Public Hearing: Final Plat avplications of Cupola Golf Course, Inc. N&' Richard Bruce et al. to set-off one 11 acre lot, and construct 76 fvartment units on said lot, east of Spear Street, north of the University Paz, Mr. Myler gave a general introduction to the project and then Bill Duff outlined the architectural changes,made since the last meeting. He said that the parking shelters had been deleted because of cost, although they could be put in later, that the emergency exit had been lengthened and � ttended to the south because of the steepness of the slope, and that 1tho Jim or of units had gone from 77 to 76. '_Xrb Poger pointed out that at the last meeting, the Commission had said that the road was too close to the parking shelters and he wished to know whether, if the shelters were later built, they would be too close. he was told that there would now be enough room. Mr. !Tyler said that every change in the plans had been approved by Mr. Page and Mr. Syzmanski. Y r} 2 . A !r gent through Mr• Page's now of March 189 1977. A name for the Pa xas discussed, with Mr. Page pointing out thst it must be by the Commission and cannot be too close in sound to another the city, since that could oause confusion on the part of the Post ,in Affiee and/or the Fire Department. Quarry Hill was proposed, with the designation of street, road, etc. to be added later. Mr. Wessel warned the developers that they would be subject to the new recreation policy, but pointed out that it would be applied fairly to all developers. Mr..Y,Tler then went through Dick Ward's memo of March, 18, 1977. In response to paragraph 2, he said that the existing vegetation will be placed on the site plan and that the trees will be protected during construction. In response to the final paragraph, Mr. Myler said that the figure of 112 of 1y of the total development cost for engineering inspection fees would amount to about S7,000 and that that seemed rather high. Mr. Wessel said that it could be omitted as a provision of final plat approval until the proper poople could take care of setting a more reasonable -foe. Mr. Myler then went through Mr. Syzmanski's memo of March 18, 1977. He said that the things discussed in the memo will be worked out before building permits are received. Mr. Weasel asked if the Fire Chief had looked at the proposed project and was told that he had looked at the preliminary plat but not at this. Mr. Wessel said that he was reluctant to give final approval until this was taken care of. Mr. Myler returned to Mr. Page's memo of March 18 and pedestrian ease- ment was discussed. At this point Richard Thomas, stating that he rep- resented Mrs. DooLaurier and the Cupola Golf Course, raised a question ,about the pedestrian easement that Cupola was providing to Horizon Heights. He was afraid that the easement would be on Cupola grounds, but was told that it would not; it will be on Horizon Heights land. He also objected to the first.four lines.an'page 2 of Mr. Page's March 18 memo.. He wanted the Commission to withhold a final requirement to bring the road up to city standards until a major subdivision is offered. He said that the road passes 3 acres of R7 Quarry Hill property which may be developed later but that the cost of upgrading the road to city standards would be so high that it would not be feasible to develop the 3 acres. He further said that if the Commission requires upgrading on the entire road he wants it to be no more stringent than the requirement for Horizon Heights (i.e. city standards without curbs and with asphalt sidewalks. Mr. foolery pointed out that Cupola Golf Course also owns 20 more acres which are business acres and that if these were developed the road would take the traffic. Mr. Poger recommended that the road be discussed when.and if there is further development. Mr. Wessel said that he would like to wait a week before giving final approval until the requirements for approval had been dealt with more completely. Mr. Myler said that they needed the fivAl plat on March 30 for the Act 250 approvals.. Mr. Poger felt that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements and that he should not be held up because the Commission had not worked out several issues yet. Mr. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final 3 plat application of Horizon Heights and Cupola Golf Course, Inc.. Plan I final subdivision approval as on the Horizon Heights plan of 11 sheets and a landscaping plan to be submitted later, by Green Mount_«a Surveys and Trudell Consulting Engineers dated 9 30 76, revised 11 29 77. and Plan II final subdivision approval to a plan entitled "CuPoIx-GQU Course, Inc." by Green Mountain Surveys, dated 3 2 77, with the following stipulations: 1) that a final landscape plan be submitted to the Planning _Commission. 2) that Horizon Heights be subject to the recreation fee to be set by the Planning Commission and approved by th*.City Council 3) that the stipulations in bill S�yzmanski's memo of March 18, 1977 be agreed to by the city engineer. 4) that a proper landscaping bond as required by the zoning ordinance be posted. 5) that on Plan II of the Cupola Golf Course the following statements be entered: "Quarry Hill Road so-called, shall be fully upgraded to city design and construction standards in the event of: a) additional subdivision, or, b) Aubstautial further development" 6) that the road be called Quarry Hill and the final designation of road, street. boulevard be added. 7) that a pedestrian right-of-way from Horizon Heights to the Quarry Hill Road, so called, be made. 8) that the drafts of the utility easements from Cupola Golf Course and Horizon Heights be reviewed by t$e City Attbrnes. 9) that the City Attorney review the documents relating to the private road utility easements_and that these be su ted.' or review and approval by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed unanimously. Chairman Wessel noted that he felt that it was premature to make approval on the final plat because so many of the administrative approvals have yet to be given. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat applications of Burlington Indoor Tennis Center, Inc., and A. Judson Babcock to set off a lot of 35.1 acres, and construct 196 apartment units on said lot, east of Twin oaks Terrace. • City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 1, 1988 Ralph Deslauriers, Jr. 100 Old Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Sketch Plan, Cupola Golf Course Dear Mr. Deslauriers: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the May 17, 1988 Planning Commission minutes. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp 1 Encl PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 July 20, 1988 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Mr. Robert Krebs Krebs & Lansing 10 Main Street Colchester, Vermont 05446 Re: Synon Group Project Dear Mr.. Krebs: Mr. Mike Keller asked me to send you the enclosed minut—i Of the May 31, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Please make :tire that the recorded final plat meets all of the stipulations irolicated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, {� Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl 1v TA Cr Lc ;. �� M No or �T/� c�- I SAtjr t? DO UE� �(I- 7 0 / li '3-01�k r.-I Z;kpo L.Ey Memorandum - Planning June 10, 1988 Page 3 5) CUMBERLAND FARMS, 974 SHELBURNE ROAD Cumberland Farms proposes to construct a 3003 square foot convenience store with 4 gas pumps on the 1.11 acre property at, 974 Shelburne Road This property is zones Commercial One and is the former Morgan Stores property .just north of the Bagel Bakery. Access: Access is shown from two curb cuts on Shelburne Road. The northern one is a 14 foot wide exit only; the southern driveway is 36 feet wide and serves as a shared driveway with the Bagel Bakery property. A right-of-way is located along the southern property line to serve parcels to the east. Circulation: The plan shows a 28 foot wide aisle along the northern side of the building and circulation on three sides of • the building. See Goddette's comments regarding fire access. Parking: Twenty three parking spaces are required based on -15% retail or 2252 square feet of food store. The plan shows 19 parking spaces. Five are located in front of the building. The rest are behind the building. This waiver should be approved since a number of existing birch would have to be removed to provide more parking. Landscaping: The proposed development requires $5850 in new landscaping. The plan shows a new landscaped island in the front and landscaping in the rear as well as along the northern property line. It is valued at the required amount although many of the plantings are small. Coverage: An earlier plan was denied by the ZBA since front. yard coverage was not brought into conformance (70% landscaped and 30% paved within the front yard setback. This new plan shows a significant improvement from the existing 100% front �-ard coverage to 59% paved and 41% green. In the past., we have approved a gas station plan (Mobil) that, improved a front �-ard coverage situation and we have denied a plan based on coxernife (as well as on other items). Front yard coverage stems eery difficult to achieve when the lots are narrow and two dri\-e ays are shown which is typical for gas stations. Traffic: This 1 . 11 acre property allows 18 t r•i p e-end, . T11e proposed use will generate approximately 47 tripends during the, peak hour. The use is already existing although the traffic will probably increase over present volumes due to the appeal of the specific business. The access changes should improve the safety of entering and exiting the property. Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. 3 RECEIVED MAY 2 5 1988 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY. OF SO. BURLINGTON: May 16, 1988 South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission: We are residents of East Terrace and have just learned that Ralph Des- Lauriers intends to present to the commission on May 17 a plan to develop the Cupola Golf Course land. Because of the short notice, we have been unable to circulate this letter, and the entire Cupola Plan, to all residents of the street. We believe, however, that the sentiments expressed in this letter are shared by all or virtually all residents of East Terrace. We base our opinion on a plan, dated May 5, 1988, and entitled "Proposal Quarry Hill" prepared by Beaudin and Associates. We are totally opposed to the Cupola Golf Course proposal for a number of reasons that we outline below. We believe the development proposed by Cupola Golf Course would have a major detrimental impact on traffic problems on Williston Road and the city in general and would destroy our neighborhood as we now know it. We urge the Planning Commission to say clearly from the outset that the proposal is unacceptable in concept and could not be made ac- ceptable without fundamental modifications. Before we detail our reasons for these views, we want to emphasize two historical. facts to the Commission. First, virtually all the land from Williston Road along East Terrace south to the INM farm was in common ownership in the DesLauriers family and business associates. Over the years, they have sold off the land in a way to create major barriers to reasonable use of the old Cupola Golf Course property. First, the land occupied by Gaynes, P&C, Spillane's Mobil and the Chittenden Bank was sold off with no access for the land south of these plots to Williston Road. East Terrace was developed with single family houses to the West. Then, the northwest part of the remainder (behind Mobil, P&C and Gaynes) was sold and developed by Burlington Tennis Club with access on East Terrace. Finally, over time the DesLauriers have sold off pieces along the southern edge to Horizon Heights, residential development, and now (proposed) the Medical Center Hospital. Each of these subdivisions has made it more dif- ficult to develop the remaining land in the center and, in our view, the stream of proposals to develop this land have been unacceptable because of the consequences of the DesLauriers development decisions which have prevented ra- tional planning. We totally reject the developer's position that we must now accept a wholly unreasonable development plan because the developer cannot find a way around self-inflicted constraints. Second, the homeowners of East Terrace bought their homes with the ex- pectation that they were protected by covenants from nearby commercial development. This protection was important because this a very fragile neigh- borhood, consisting essentially of one street bounded on the West by a major artery (Spear Street) and thereafter the University of Vermont. We cannot ask the Planning Commission to enforce our covenants. We can, and do, ask the Planning Commission to protect the residential character of our neighborhood against being overrun by a commercial development that would abut us. We believe that this is exactly the consequence of the proposal before you. With this background in mind, the following are our major objections to the proposal: 1. ACCESS - The proposed access to this development through another road and traffic light on Williston Road between the jughandle and Gaynes traffic lights should be categorically rejected. The access comes out at one of the worst traffic points in the City of South Burlington. Even after the widening of Williston Road, we find the Gaynes, East Avenue and Spear Street intersec- tions difficult to negotiate when there is any traffic volume. This new road and light will only make the situation worse. Further, if it is designed as a through street as proposed, it will quickly become a major city artery. The uses proposed for the development will generate a lot of traffic - the MCHV proposal alone will generate 480 trip ends per day. The whole development will generate thousands of automobile trips into this area. More important, the road will quickly become a way around the bottle -necked jughandle and divert a major traffic stream through this new light, creating a second bottle -necked intersection. Even if the traffic problems can be ameliorated through light timing and other traffic flow devices, it is absolutely clear that the new intersection represents very poor planning. Since the need for it is created solely by the inappropriate land use decisions of the developers over the years, it should be rejected for this reason alone. The message to the developers should be that they must develop an access through the Gaynes/Sheraton intersection or have none at all. 2. Proximity of Access Road to Residences - Under the proposal 10 houses on East Terrace will end up sandwiched between East Terrace in the front of their house and this new major street against the back of their house. Be- cause of the views, these houses were built to be open - with picture windows - to the East and are built into the hillside. The view will change to that of a busy city street - the openness of the house designs will deprive them of any privacy. The back yards will become virtually unusable. No amount of screening will make them palatable. We know of no place in the City of South Burlington where homes are sandwiched between two city streets. We cannot conceive of any theory of land use planning that would make such a road -placement acceptable. The sole reason it is being proposed is to make as little impact as possible on Bur- lington Tennis C' b in creating a new access on Williston Road. As we stated 2 above, we find the access objectionable because of its traffic impact. When the access also greatly impairs the use and enjoyment of ten homes, it is out- rageous. 3. men Space - In short, there is none. The whole purpose behind the city's subdivision and planned commercial development regulations is to use land flexibly to meet important goals like maintaing aesthetics, minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding uses, etc. This proposal maximizes the adverse impact on East Terrace. It jams two commercial buildings and a city street right up against the backyards of East Terrace homes. Obviously, it is designed to maximize the sale value of each lot without regard to the impact on East Terrace. In order to see how it would impact on our homes, we en- courage the members of the Planning Commission to walk the land. If there must be a commercial development on the Cupola Golf Course land, we ask that the Planning Commission obtain for the citizens of South Burlington all the open space that the law allows. The open space with ap- propriate buffering should be placed along the boundary with the East Terrace homes. Development should be placed along the interstate and over the brow of the hill on the property. In any event, building heights should not exceed one story. All decisions should be made with the understanding that the com- mercial development will abut a residential neighborhood and the adverse im- pacts on that neighborhood must be minimized. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to the Planning Com- mission. We would be happy to assist the Commission in any way we can in con- nection with the proposal to develop the Cupola Golf Course land. Sincerely, Concerned East Terrace Homeowners 7-x� a ✓� /�-. Ye G ,r� tip 0rySC PLANNING COMMISSION 21 June 1988 page 5 7. Review proposed zoning amendments from City Council on Cit Center and set date for a Public Hearinq Mrs. Lafleur noted the Council approved City Center Zoning as warned for them. Amendments are as follows: 1.70 parking lots have to be connected 1.602 setbacks are cleaned up, giving a building envelope to build in provided there is no parking in front of buildings 1.201 the word "only" is removed and also "2 floors or more" On this item the Commission wanted the wording: "No drive-in establishments will be allowed." 1.204 the words "or other retail services and shops" were added 1.304 was changed to 1.405 Yet to be discussed are frontage requirements and minimum lot sizes. There is also a question as to whether transmission lines can be outlawed in a zone. Members agreed to warn the public hearing for the next available meeting. Mr. Jacob said the Commission should go on record that the services of Mike Munson are needed for City Center zoning. Other Business Mrs. Lafleur noted the Council received a petition from East Woods residents relative to the closing of Farrell St. The Council motion asked for hearings on this anapossible alternatives such as stop signs, dips in the road, speed bumps, etc. It was also noted that a petition opposing the closing of Farrell St. was also received. The Synon Group has requested a change to their parking lot as the turn -around won't work. Ms. Lafleur said she felt their request was acceptable. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the revised parking layout for Synon Group. Mr. Belter seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members of the Commission then recognized the service, effort and good humor of the outgoing Planner and wished both Ms. Lafleur and her replacement, Mr. Weith, well in their new endeavors. As there was no further business to come berore the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Clerk HORIZON HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION LIST OF OFFICERS(June 1988): MIKE SELBY (President) 5 Pine Haven Shore Shelburne Vt 05482 BILL MORAN (Treasurer) RFD #2 Broadlake Rd Colchester Vt 05446 CECELIA 8 JAY Unit #77 Horizon Hts MITIGUY (Secretary) Spear Street S Burlington Vt 05403 RUDY LIA (Board) PEG McGOWAN (Board) AVIS PORTER (Board) RESIDENT MANAGER: DON SELBY 4 Woodbine Road Shelburne Vt 05482 3 Windridge Road Essex Jct Vt 05452 1257 Airport Drive S Burington Vt 05403 Unit #32 Horizon Hts Spear Street S Burlington Vt 05403 985-2893 658-3943 862-1211 985-3780 879-7330 862-6222 863-3984 Memorandum - Planning June 24, 1988 Page 3 lot in the rear of the building, making a total of 30 spaces. These 30 spaces would be sufficient. landscaping: The building requires $5300 in landscaping. The plan shows sugar maples, linden, birch clumps, flowering crab, lilac bushes, hetz juniper, burning bushes, dogwood and potentillas, which meets the $5,300 landscaping requirement. The proposed plan does not meet the zoning requirement that a maximum of 30% of the required front yard area be devoted to driveways and parking. The plan shows 49% of the front yard area devoted to driveways and parking. Sufficient open spaces exists on the rear of the lot to allow the building and front parking lot to be moved back in order to meet this requirement. This must be revised. Setbacks: The private drive running along the west side of the property was approved by the Planning Commission as a private roadway to serve lots 39 & 40. Since this is a private drive, the building's proposed 15 foot setback meets zoning requirements. However, if this roadway were ever to become a public street, the proposed building would become a non- conforming structure since buildings on corner lots must have a side yard setback of 30 feet. Intersection Improvements: Mr. Belter agreed to complete four intersection improvements prior to permit for any of these lots. Also, each lot developer must pay $880 per lot at time of building permit for a share of long range improvements to this dangerous intersection. These fees also were agreed to by John Belter and the City. (See letter of September 1, 1987) Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. A sewer allocation of 450 gpd will be needed and will be deducted from John Belter's allocation for the entire subdivision. The $2.50 per gallon fee must be paid prior to permit. 6) CUPOLA GOLF COURSE, QUARRY HILL ROAD (Comments prepared by Jane Lafleur) Ralph Deslauriers has submitted a new sketch plan that shows a subdivision of the 26 + acre Cupola Golf Course property into four C-1 lots, a hotel lot and an R-7 lot. (These are not 3 Memorandum - Planning June 24, 1988 page 4 correctly labeled. The lot labeled R7 is actually zoned R-4. The lot north of the day-care is zoned R-7.) Access: The plan shows the new City Street as an extension to Quarry Hill Road which connects with Williston Road between the Chittenden Bank and Mobil. The major difference with this plan is that the road does not abut the East Terrace properties but instead places the Burlington Tennis Club along these properties as a buffer. The Commission should carefully consider whether a new major access like this should be allowed on to Williston Road and whether a new signal is appropriate. Clearly, most commercial development behind Gaynes will produce enough traffic to warrant a signal. The question for the Commission is whether a new signal and new intersection should be approved. I still believe no new access should be given and any access to Williston Road should only be allowed through the P & C/Gaynes parking lot. Although this would require major relocation of P & C, I do not believe it is unreasonable to suggest. Otherwise, it should be developed residentially with sole access to Spear Street and possibly East Terrace. Traffic Study: The developer has requested that the Planning Commission indicate which intersections should be studied for their traffic study. The Commission should require any traffic study to use the JHK Dorset Street study as base data and should at a minimum study the following intersections: 1) Quarry Hill Road/Spear Street 2) New Proposed Street/Williston Road 3) Spear Street/Williston Road 4) East Avenue/Williston Road 5) Sheraton/Gaynes/Williston Road 6) Dorset Street/Williston Road 7) Williston Road/Hinesburg Road 8) Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road 9) Dorset Street/Kennedy Drive * The Commission should discuss if these should be included. The present ordinance says the Level of Service shall be C on all legs of the intersection. The developer may have to make significant improvements and pay significant impact fees if any development is approved. The study should assume maximum density under existing or proposed zoning for trip generation rates. Other: See two letters from area residents. See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4 PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 June 28, 1988 Ralph Deslauriers 100 Old Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Sketch plan, Cupola Golf Course Dear Mr. Deslauriers: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the agenda and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also enclosed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, June 28, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S'ncerely, 1 4� Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls PLANNING COMMISSION 17 May 1988 page 3 Mrs. Maher moved the Planning Commission approve the site plan ap- plication of the Holiday Inn for construction of a 3470 sq. ft. addition for pool, exercise area and hot tubs at 1068 Williston Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan: Pool Addition, Holiday Inn, 1068 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont" prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere Architects, dated 5/6 88 with the following stipulations: 1. A $6,000 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit. If permission is not obtained from the State and Federal Government to plant on their land, a revised plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval showing th plantings on the Holiday Inn property. 2. No plantings shall be placed within a 12-14 foot strip along the north side of Williston Rd. right-of-way. 3. An Offer of Dedication and Deed shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval prior to permit for a 14 foot strip of land along the north side of Williston Road right-Of-way. 4. The landscaped area along the Interstate ramp shall be maintained by the Holiday Inn including cutting grass and weeds. 5. The Planning Commission allows the removal of 10 parking spaces from the plan. 6. This addition shall not be a public facility but shall serve hotel guests only. 7. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Discussion with Ralph Deslauriers, Jr. re the subdivision and development of 26+ acres of the Cupola Golf Course property located south of Gavnes Ralph, Sr. began by saying a hotel is proposed on the lowest piece of land. They are trying to keep denser and higher uses away from the residences. Ralph, Jr. indicated they had asked for the work session for the following items to be addressed: location of the curb cut on Williston Rd, connection of Quarry Hill Rd. with the proposed road. He noted they do not have a commitment with the bank or the Burlington Tennis Club. The land does not involve any Mobil property. The Tennis Club occupies only 1/2 of their land. This developer may buy a piece of land from them. The parcel behind Mobil is owned by the bank. A public road is proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 May 1988 page 4 Mrs. Maher noted the road would have to be upgraded to a city street for the daycare development. There is a mix of zoning on the 26 acres, including R-7, R-4, and Commercial. Lots 7, 1, 2, and 3 are commercial. Most of lot 4 is R-4. The Commission was unanimous in wanting a public street. Mr. Belter questioned where the new street would go on the Tennis Club property. Ralph Jr. said through some parking and pool area. Also a children's play area would have to be moved. Mr. Belter questioned whether this was removing a buffer area for a public street. Ralph Jr. said there is a mature cedar hedge about 10 feet high on the Club property which would be kept. They would also continue the hedge and further provide an acoustical fence to buffer the Tennis Club. Mrs. Maher rioted the Planner and City Manager have reservations about how the intersection would operate, specifically whether it would conflict with traffic going into the Sheraton and other businesses. Mr. Szymanski feels it is not long enough for stacking lanes. Ralph Jr, said if they serviced off the Gaynes intersections they would have to increase the green time on the signal. He added that. ;Regional Planning prefers their proposed ,location and, doesn't feel 'stacking would be an insoluble problem 1 Mr. Souci expressed concern this would be a through street from Spear St. to Williston Rd. and the neighborhood will get all the traffic trying to avoid Shelburne Rd. by going up Spear St. He was also concerned with the general impact on residents of East Terrace and that their neighborhood will be turned into a com- mercial area. He pleaded they do anything but build a hotel. Ms. Atherton, owner of the house at the corner of the new road, said they will feel like the "ham in a ham sandwich" between 2 roads. She said they are already not buffered and this will be worse. Mr. Deslauriers said they would continue the hedge and are looking at an acoustical fence. Mrs. Atherton said they want a buffer on their side of the road. Ralph Jr. said a fence could be put there too. Mr. Long, resident of East Terrace, opposed the proposal. He said he had moved there because they thought it was a residential area. Through traffic would significantly decrease the attractiveness of the area. The increase in traffic would also disrupt the quality of their lives. He said the Deslauriers had created the problem for themselves and now wanted residents and the city to pay for it. Sandra Dooley presented a letter signed by residents of East Terrace. She also read a quote from Art Hogan of Regional Planning saying the proposed access is less attractive than the Gaynes access. Mrs. Dooley enumerated the neighbors' objections: PLANNING COMMISSION 17 May 1988 page 5 a) detrimental affects on Williston Rd. which affect the City as well as residents of the area; b) impact on the residential neighborhood; c) Deslauriers' problem was caused by selling off a piece of their land; d)homes were bought with the understanding this would remain a residential neighborhood; e) the Jughandle gets bogged with traffic as it is; f) probability this will become a major artery because it is a through street; g) timing of lights will not solve the problem; h) 10 or 11 homes near the Tennis Club are oriented to the east and their privacy will -be destroyed; i) nowhere in the City is a row of homes sandwiched between 2 streets, and this is not a good thing to do; j) no open space is shown in the proposal. Ralph Sr. gave a history of the property and said the problem was caused by the building of the Interstate which took away a planned entrance to the property. John Dooley cited the Horizon Heights approval minutes of 11/16/76 which state in Condition #7 that the commercial area shall not have access through the residential neighborhood. He noted this project would be a major traffic generator. 480 trips per day are already planned for the Medical Center plan. Mr. Dooley felt the consequences for the City would be unbelievable.; He also stressed that the Deslauriers were paid for the land they gave up for the Interstate project. Commission members outlined the reactions to the proposal: Ms. Peacock was not pleased with the access road and was also con- cerned with the intersection. Mr. Belter agreed but wanted to hear from traffic consultants. He also wanted 'to see a lot more room for houses. Mr. Burgess agreed with both concerns and felt the Horizon Heights strip is critical. Mrs. Maher would prefer to see access through P & C provided the intersection can be kept at level "C". Ms. Pugh wanted to have a history of the 1976 stipulation. She also encouraged the developer to meet with the neighbors. Mrs. Maher suggested using an overlay and lining u properties with zoning lines so the Commission can see what can be done via zoning regulations. Ms. Pugh said she would like any traffic study to include summer months when Quarry Hill is open. Mr. Burgess noted the Commission dictates what the traffic study will contain. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. Clerk NEIL H. MICKENBERG JAMES J. DUNN MICHAEL D. SIROTKIN WILLIAM M DORSCH JOHN D. SHULLENBERGER MICKENBERG, DUNN, SIROTKIN & DORSCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1531 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 OFFICES AT 29 PINE STREET BURLINGTON TELEPHONE (802) 658-6951 June 22, 1988 South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission: I represent the residents of East Terrace, who are concerned about proposed development of the land abutting homes on East Terrace and owned by Cupola Golf Course, Inc. On May 17th, Ralph DesLauriers presented to the Planning Commission a sketch plan of a proposed development. At that time, my clients appeared before the Commission to object to the development proposal. The attached letter, which was sent to the Commission for the May meeting, contains a synopsis of the residents' major objections. On June 28, Ralph DesLauriers will present a new sketch plan to the Commission. While the new plan removes one of the objections contained in my clients' original letter (the running of a road directly behind 10 East Terrace homes) by rerouting the proposed access road, it adds new features which the residents find wholly objectionable. On balance, the residents believe this is a worse plan than the one presented in May because of its adverse impacts on the residents of East Terrace and City of South Burlington.. Therefore, the residents renew their opposition to the proposed plan and urge the Planning Commission to advise the developer that the plan cannot be approved without major modifications. The major reasons for the residents' opposition are as follows. I. ACCESS - This plan, like the last one, creates a new access road and traffic light on Williston Road between Gaynes and the jughandle. It also retains access through Quarry Hill road next to Horizon Heights. The residents strongly object to both access points. Their objection to the Williston Road access is detailed in their first letter. The problems created by a new access only add to the unacceptable traffic impacts from the proposed development. The South Burlington ordinance requires that affected intersections June 22, 1988 Page two operate at a level of service of "C" or better after the development. It is impossible for this development to comply with the traffic standards because critical nearby intersections function below LOS "C" and this development will further impair their operation. The recent JHK & Associates study shows that the intersection of Williston Road and Dorset Street already functions at LOS "E" and is expected to get much worse unless major roadway improvements - like an interstate access at Dorset Street - are constructed. My clients know from their experience that the jughandle functions below LOS "C" and will be made worse by this development even if it accessed through an existing light. The residents realize that Cupola is entitled to do a traffic study and put the best face possible on the data and impacts. When all is said and done, however, this development will require that the Planning Commission waive the current ordinance limits on traffic impacts at one or more intersections. My clients strongly urge you to refuse any waivers - this is the last place in the city that should be subject to a traffic waiver. My clients also object to the access through Quarry Hill road. It is in direct violation of the stipulations accepted by Cupola at the time of the development of Horizon Heights that there would be no access through this residential neighborhood. It turns the access road into a major through street with tremendous traffic through the new light. The Commission should make clear from the beginning that there will be no access to the commercial area through Quarry Hill road. II. DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE - The proposal calls for development at the absolute maximum tolerated by the ordinance, despite the traffic impacts and the impact on East Terrace. The proposal provides no open space - no buffering to East Terrace except for the newly proposed high density residential - see below. Section 19.153 of the ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to locate open space for a planned commercial development. The residents request that the Planning Commission reduce the density of the development and require substantial open space between it and East Terrace. Further, building heights should not exceed one story. Only in this way can the traffic impact be minimized and the East Terrace neighborhood be preserved. III. ZONING CHANGES - This proposal, unlike the last one, calls for zoning changes converting residential to commercial East of the Quarry Hill club; R4 to R7 behind East Terrace and some commercial to R7 behind East Terrace. The residents oppose the addition of any more commercial land, because of its traffic impacts and the adverse impact on surrounding uses. The residents support the conversion of commercial zoning to R4 on June 22, 1988 Page three the golf course area. They strongly oppose the conversion of R4 to R7 or any other use of R7 in the area. R7 is too dense given the traffic problems in the area. An R7 zoning is absolutely inconsistent with the single family housing on East Terrace - on this point, we note that Horizon Heights has converted to apartment rentals to college students, and this kind of use already has a negative effect on East Terrace. The developer's proposal would add between 20 and 25 new units. IV. EAST TERRACE ACCESS - While the proposal does not specify it clearly, it appears that the developer's intent is to create an access to the new residential development of 20 to 25 units through a right of way on to East Terrace. East Terrace is a dead end road that cannot take the traffic of a major new development. The Commission recognized this three years ago when it stipulated that approval of a residential development on the 1.25 acre wedge between Quarry Hill and East Terrace would be contingent on Ralph DesLauriers agreeing that no further development would have access through the East Terrace right of way. Mr. DesLauriers withdrew his development proposal to avoid the stipulation. We strongly urge the Commission to maintain its established position on this East Terrace access. It is unsafe to allow any more vehicles on to the dead end street, and the residents of the street want it to remain a dead end. My clients appreciate this opportunity to present their views. The residents request that the Commission walk the land so that you can see the fragile nature of the East Terrace neighborhood and the likely impacts of a major new commercial development. Sincerely, William M Dorsch WMD/ks Enclosure PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 May 13, 1988 Ralph Deslauries, Jr. 100 Old Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Cupola Golf Course Property Dear Mr. Deslauriers: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the agenda and my memo to the Planning Commission. Also enclosed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, May 17, 1988 to represent your request. Sincerely, 4d,� Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp Encls NEIL H. MICKENBERG JAMES J. DUNN MICHAEL D. SIROTKIN WILLIAM M DORSCH JOHN D. SHULLENBERGER MICKENBERG, DUNN, SIROTKIN & DORSCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1531 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 OFFICES AT 29 PINE STREET BURLINGTON TELEPHONE (802) 658-69S 1 June 22, 1988 South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission: I represent the residents of East Terrace, who are concerned about proposed development of the land abutting homes on East Terrace and owned by Cupola Golf Course, Inc. On May 17th, Ralph DesLauriers presented to the Planning Commission a sketch plan of a proposed development. At that time, my clients appeared before the Commission to object to the development proposal. The attached letter, which was sent to the Commission for the May meeting, contains a synopsis of the residents' major objections. On June 28, Ralph DesLauriers will present a new sketch plan to the Commission. While the new plan removes one of the objections contained in my clients' original letter (the running of a road directly behind 10 East Terrace homes) by rerouting the proposed access road, it adds new features which the residents find wholly objectionable. On balance, the residents believe this is a worse plan than the one presented in May because of its adverse impacts on the residents of East Terrace and City of South Burlington. Therefore, the residents renew their opposition to the proposed plan and urge the Planning Commission to advise the developer that the plan cannot be approved without major modifications. The major reasons for the residents' opposition are as follows. I. ACCESS - This plan, like the last one, creates a new access road and traffic light on Williston Road between Gaynes and the jughandle. It also retains access through Quarry Hill road next to Horizon Heights. The residents strongly object to both access points. Their objection to the Williston Road access is detailed in their first letter. The problems created by a new access only add to the unacceptable traffic impacts from the proposed development. The South Burlington ordinance requires that affected intersections June 22, 1988 Page two operate at a level of service of "C" or better after the development. It is impossible for this development to comply with the traffic standards because critical nearby intersections function below LOS "C" and this development will further impair their operation. The recent JHK & Associates study shows that the intersection of Williston Road and Dorset Street already functions at LOS "E" and is expected to get much worse unless major roadway improvements - like an interstate access at Dorset Street - are constructed. My clients know from their experience that the jughandle functions below LOS "C" and will be made worse by this development even if it accessed through an existing light. The residents realize that Cupola is entitled to do a traffic study and put the best face possible on the data and impacts. When all is said and done, however, this development will require that the Planning Commission waive the current ordinance limits on traffic impacts at one or more intersections. My clients strongly urge you to refuse any waivers - this is the last place in the city that should be subject to a traffic waiver. My clients also object to the access through Quarry Hill road. -. It is riWdirect violation of the stipulations accepted by Cupola at the time of the development of Horizon Heights that there would be no access through this residential neighborhood. It turns the access road into a major through street with tremendous traffic through the new light. The Commission should make clear from the beginning that there will be no access to the commercial area through Quarry Hill road. II. DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE - The proposal calls for development at the absolute maximum tolerated by the ordinance, despite the traffic impacts and the impact on East Terrace. The proposal provides no open space - no buffering to East Terrace except for the newly proposed high density residential - see below. Section 19.153 of the ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to locate open space for a planned commercial development. The residents request that the Planning Commission reduce the density of the development and require substantial open space between it and East Terrace. Further, building heights should not exceed one story., Only in this way can the traffic impact be minimized and the East Terrace neighborhood be preserved. III. ZONING CHANGES - This proposal, unlike the last one, calls for zoning changes converting residential to commercial East of the Quarry Hill club; R4 to R7 behind East Terrace and some commercial to R7 behind East Terrace. The residents oppose the addition of any more commercial land, because of its traffic impacts and the adverse impact on surrounding uses. The residents support the conversion of commercial zoning to R4 on June 22, 1988 Page three the golf course area. They strongly oppose the conversion of R4 to R7 or any other use of R7 in the area. R7 is too dense given the traffic problems in the area. An R7 zoning is absolutely inconsistent with the single family housing on East Terrace - on this point, we note that Horizon Heights has converted to apartment rentals to college students, and this kind of use already has a negative effect on East Terrace. The developer's proposal would add between 20 and 25 new units. IV. EAST TERRACE ACCESS - While the proposal does not specify it clearly, it appears that the developer's intent is to create an access to the new residential development of 20 to 25 units through a right of way on to East Terrace. East Terrace is a dead end road that cannot take the traffic of a major new development. The Commission recognized this three years ago when it stipulated that approval of a residential development on the 1.25 acre wedge between Quarry Hill and East Terrace would be contingent on Ralph DesLauriers agreeing that no further development would have access through the East Terrace right of way. Mr. DesLauriers withdrew his development proposal to avoid the stipulation. We strongly urge the Commission to maintain its established position on this East Terrace access. It is unsafe to allow any more vehicles on to the dead end street, and the residents of the street want it to remain a dead end. My clients appreciate this opportunity to present their views. The residents request that the Commission walk the land so that you can see the fragile nature of the East Terrace neighborhood and the likely impacts of a major new commercial development. Sincerely, William M Dorsch WMD/ks Enclosure May 16, 1988 South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission: We are residents of East Terrace and have just learned that Ralph Des- Lauriers intends to present to the commission on May 17 a plan to develop the Cupola Golf Course land. Because of the short notice, we have been unable to circulate this letter, and the entire Cupola Plan, to all residents of the street. We believe, however, that the sentiments expressed in this letter are shared by all or virtually all residents of East Terrace. We base our opinion on a plan, dated May 5, 1988, and entitled "Proposal Quarry Hill" prepared by Beaudin and Associates. We are totally opposed to the Cupola Golf Course proposal for a number of reasons that we outline below. We believe the development proposed by Cupola Golf Course would have a major detrimental impact on traffic problems on Williston Road and the city in general and would destroy our neighborhood as we now know it. We urge the Planning Commission to say clearly from the outset that the proposal is unacceptable in concept and could not be made ac- ceptable without fundamental modifications. Before we detail our reasons for these views, we want to emphasize two historical facts to the Commission. First, virtually all the land from Williston Road along East Terrace south to the UVM farm was in common ownership in the DesLauriers family and business associates. Over the years, they have sold off the land in a way to create major barriers to reasonable use of the old Cupola Golf Course property. First, the land occupied by Gaynes, P&C, Spillane's Mobil and the Chittenden Bank was sold off with no access for the land south of these plots to Williston Road. East Terrace was developed with single family houses to the West. Then, the northwest part of the remainder (behind Mobil, P&C and Gaynes) was sold and developed by Burlington Tennis Club with access on East Terrace. Finally, over time the DesLauriers have sold off pieces along the southern edge to Horizon Heights, residential development, and now (proposed) the Medical Center Hospital. Each of these subdivisions has made it more dif- ficult to develop the remaining land in the center and, in our view, the stream of proposals to develop this land have been unacceptable because of the consequences of the DesLauriers development decisions which have prevented ra- tional planning. We totally reject the developer's position that we must now accept a wholly unreasonable development plan because the developer cannot find a way around self-inflicted constraints. Second, the homeowners of East Terrace bought their homes with the ex- pectation that they were protected by covenants from nearby commercial development. This protection was important because this a very fragile neigh- borhood, consisting essentially of one street bounded on the West by a major artery (Spear Street) and thereafter the University of Vermont. We cannot ask the Planning Commission to enforce our covenants. We can, and do, ask the Planning Commission to protect the residential character of our neighborhood against being overrun by a commercial development that would abut us. We believe that this is exactly the consequence of the proposal before you. With this background in mind, the following are our major objections to the proposal: 1. ACCESS - The proposed access to this development through another road and traffic light on Williston Road between the jughandle and Gaynes traffic lights should be categorically rejected. The access comes out at one of the worst traffic points in the City of South Burlington. Even after the widening of Williston Road, we find the Gaynes, East Avenue and Spear Street intersec- tions difficult to negotiate when there is any traffic volume. This new road and light will only make the situation worse. Further, if it is designed as a through street as proposed, it will quickly become a major city artery. The uses proposed for the development will generate a lot of traffic - the MCHV proposal alone will generate 480 trip ends per day. The whole development will generate thousands of automobile trips into this area. More important, the road will quickly become a way around the bottle -necked jughandle and. divert a major traffic stream through this new light, creating a second bottle -necked intersection. Even if the traffic problems can be ameliorated through light timing and other traffic flow devices, it is absolutely clear that the new intersection represents very poor planning. Since the need for it is created solely by the inappropriate land use decisions of the developers over the years, it should be rejected for this reason alone. The message to the developers should be that they must develop an access through the Gaynes/Sheraton intersection or have none at all. 2. Proximity of Access Road to Residences - Under the proposal 10 houses on East Terrace will end up sandwiched between East Terrace in the front of their house and this new major street against the back of their house. Be- cause of the views, these houses were built to be open - with picture windows - to the East and are built into the hillside. The view will change to that of a busy city street - the openness of the house designs will deprive them of any privacy. The back yards will become virtually unusable. No amount of screening will make them palatable. We know of no place in the City of South Burlington where homes are sandwiched between two city streets. We cannot conceive of any theory of land use planning that would make such a road placement acceptable. The sole reason it is being proposed is to make as little impact as possible on Bur- lington Tennis Club in creating a new access on Williston Road. As we stated F above, we find the access objectionable because of its traffic impact. When the access also greatly impairs the use and enjoyment of ten homes, it is out- rageous. 3. Open Space - In short, there is none. The whole purpose behind the city's subdivision and planned commercial development regulations is to use land flexibly to meet important goals like maintaing aesthetics, minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding uses, etc. This proposal maximizes the adverse impact on East Terrace. It jams two commercial buildings and a city street right up against the backyards of East Terrace homes. Obviously, it is designed to maximize the sale value of each lot without regard to the impact on East Terrace. In order to see how it would impact on our homes, we en- courage the members of the Planning Commission to walk the land. If there must be a commercial development on the Cupola Golf Course land, we ask that the Planning Commission obtain for the citizens of South Burlington all the open space that the law allows. The open space with ap- propriate buffering should be placed along the boundary with the East Terrace homes. Development should be placed along the interstate and over the brow of the hill on the property. In any event, building heights should not exceed one story. All decisions should be made with the understanding that the com- mercial development will abut a residential neighborhood and the adverse im- pacts on that neighborhood must be minimized. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to the Planning Com- mission. We would be happy to assist the Commission in any way we can in con- nection with the proposal to develop the Cupola Golf Course land. c 0-944�. 1N Sincerely, Concerned East Terrace Homeowners Tl g C Y d`t/ 1. VL2 0 e-rl L/J e,1 G>�yt Graz � �-7 i' b t J e- �J rf unsightly areas from public streets and/or adjoining properties. e. Other, including drainage, fire protection, outdoor lighting, aesthetics, and similar site factors that are directly interrelated with the above aspects of site plan review. 19.103 Driveway and Street Requirements The following standards for driveways and their intersections with public streets shall apply during site plan review: a. Unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission there shall be one driveway per lot. This provision shall not exclude dual driveways where one lane is marked for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. b. Driveways shall meet the following standards unless a i t -size is required by the Plannin sMecial circumstances: Residen is - 12 feet minimum width, 36 feet maximum width; Commercial - 20 feet minimum width, 36 maximum width. All residential streets and roads to ancJ. within a development shall have 30 feet minimum pavement width within a 60 foot right- of-way. Commercial streets shall have 32 feet of pavement within an 80 foot right-of-way. Roads shall be built to City standards for materials and base. (See Aisles and Access Drives, Section 19.254b. All newly constructed streets and roads serving three or more units shall be publicly owned and maintained and shall be constructed to city standards. (See Section 19.20 regarding lots with no road frontage and private streets. d. The Planning Commission may require installation of acceleration and/or deceleration lanes on the adjacent public street if it deems necessary. e. Driveways shall be located more than 200 feet as measured from signalized street intersections. Greater distances should be encouraged on streets with high traffic volumes (see PCD guidelines in Section 11.504c). 19.1-04 Landscaping requirements The following standards for landscaping, screening 51 HO( 'ON HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM A� CIATIOH BOARD OF DIRECTORS South Burlington Planning City of South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont Commission 05403 Dear Members of the Planning Commission 5 Pine Haven Shore Shelburne Vermont 05482 July 1 1988 As President of the Board of Directors of Horizon Heights I am writing to express our extreme concern about the proposed development of the land abutting Horizon Heights and owned by Cupola Golf Course Inc. While we recognize the reasonable rights of the land owners to develop their property as they see fit, the proposed creation of a through road from Williston Rd. .linking with Quarry Hill Rd. to give commercial access to the new development is, we feel, completely unacceptable. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Such a road is in direct conflict with the agreement between the Planning Commission, Cupola Golf Course Inc. and Horizon Heights made at the Commission hearing on November 16 1476. (Excerpt attached) 2. The increased traffic created by such a road will place at hazard the safety of the residents of Horizon Heights, of which not a few are children. 3. The link to Spear Street at the Quarry Hill intersection will create a "mini Dorset Street" of Spear with a large amount of commercial traffic from the South using it. A situation which Spear St. is not designed to handle and which will inevitably lead to further demands on the City for widening and upgrading. In addition to the above concerns for Horizon Heights residents and for Spear Street itself, we also feel that yet another light on Williston Road (as proposed) will make an already bad situation worse. We appreciate this opportunity to put forward our views and we urge you as Members of the Commission to reject this proposal by Cupola Golf Course Inc. Sincerely Mic/i"ael4'C Selby President Board of Directors 2. PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16 L19?6 G!hairman Wessel then asked if Section 2 of the Cupola motion should say by whom the road should be upgraded. Mr. Page explained it would be a situation where the buyer would come in and develop it or the price could be adjusted and Quarry Hill would do it. Mr. Poger said it was really not the business of the Planning Commission who does it. Mr. Morency felt the City might be left with the task of making a new owner upgrade the road. Mr. Poger explained that by voting approval of the road to be brought up to City standards the Commission has already decided the Cupola or the developer will bring it up to City standards. Yr. ;;orency asked if traffic had been resolved for the remaining lot of 2.8 acres. Mr. Poger said the Commission had stated it would not allow commercial development to take place with access through that residential area, so if It was developed commercially It would have to have some other access. They have been is rned that by allowing residential development they have precluded their option of having something other than housing in that area unless they find some other access. Mr. Wessel said he thought it was the responsibility of the Planning Com- mission to rezone the rest of the property. Mr. Poger said the thought had been that this would be commercial and have some other access. There might be some possibility of Cupola working with Caynes. But if they have land locked themselves, he didn't think they would come to the Planning Commission. lie felt the point had been made very clearly to both the developer and to Mrs. DesLauriers that the zone could be changed. Mr. Wessel asked about the pedestrian trail along the Interstate. Mr:' Page referred to �Sectipn.:�,.1n�•hi�-motion and"ac1 .that the 143yout of the trailJsr-ridt go~ing to change the layout of the properiy Mr,,Sct- ele said in two or three years this could be very difficult un s � was spelled out now. Regarding access to the remaining 28 acres, Yr. Poger suggested adding a Section 7 to the prepared motion for approval of Cupola Golf Course, Inc. subdivision to read: The followlnr agreements were made In discussion_ between the Cupola Golf Course, Inc., Horizon Helahts, and the Planning Commission that further development of the 28 acres zoned commercial shall not have access through the residential neighborhood. Unless further access is found the Plannlnr. Commission expects those 28 acres to be developed as a residential area. The members of the Commission agreed to this addition. Ms. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning Corr -gant .preliminary approval to the major subdivision knowU. zon Heights, co in in off two bedroom apartment Site PI n!'r;""'8 win by Vaughn C. Button, subject to un1.3�s<��ssho n on the plan entl tl ed Q"0 'band revised 10 1 the followinv. stipulations: All land presently zoned CO on this plat shall be :maintained by the owner, and specifically reserved for open space and -ecreatlonal purposes. final plat shall Include the followlr.f changes to the Ymirary plat: bearings of pr ol:erty lines and parcel ,age, location of monuments, number of units in each R$c C U poLrj C,,CA-F Ccy,,,) 1 1, jrjL. a REVISIONS CUR NO. DATE BY I eJ 7,17 7 2 DRAWN BY 4 CHK'D 5 TRACED SCALE MATERIAL DATE DRAWING N6 APP D A I Sc�vls • -P Moo' iZI?1%7 1ENN iS c e /� t tit MF f � \O Noc��ztN —� 'il'TELEUYNEPOST 18AE-14E-17X22