Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB-85-0000 - Supplemental - 0000 Ridgewood Driveoo� To: William Szymanski, City Manager Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator David Spitz, North Country Planning From: Richard A. Spokes Date: January 16, 1985 Re: RIDGEWOOD Enclosed please find the Ridgewood decision which unfortunately is unfavorable to the City. Would you each please review the Findings and let me know your thoughts. We should determine whether it is appropriate to appeal the Order to the Vermont Supreme Court. If we elect to do so, I should file appropriate motions in the Superior Court within the next ten (10) days. RAS:mil SU11L:R10R COURT Francis X. Murray, Esq. McNeil, Murray & Sorrell, Inc. Attorneys at Law 111 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Richard A. Spokes, Esq. Spokes, Foley & Stitzel Attorneys at Law 184 South Winooski Ave. Box 986 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Ridgewood Estates Gentlemen, f� (802) 888-2207 I,l1M0 �I LIT (a)UN'll' C'OWlt'I'I 11YDF.1'ARK, VFPMO�NA 05655 January 1, 1985 Herewith a copy of the findings, conclusions & order in the above matter. Please forgive me for the months that have gone by since this matter was heard. I worked on the case on and off for months. The delay was simply because last summer I was swamped with long trials. I was the only judge assigned to Chittenden for the full summer, and every trial longer than a few days was assigned to me. In addition, I felt that I first had to take care of such matters as final divorces and other such cases that immediately affect peoples' lives. Consequently, since the decision in this case would have little immediate impact, it followed some of ray other cases pending for findings. These findings have a lot of detail. If they are in error on some technical points, such as in references to exhibits and the like, please call the errors to my attention. If either of you feel the conclusions should consider some law that might be applicable in view of the findings of fact, please bring it to my attention. In short, if either of you feel that amendments are needed to put the decision in proper form for appeal, please let me know. Since you have waited this long, feel free to take the time you need. Work it out between you as to how long you will need to respond, because unless you ask me to set a date, you 1 will be locked into the rules as to motions to amend findings and time for appeal. A simple stipulation for my approval as to extending the time will do. Thank you for your help in the memoranda that you filed. I found this case unusual and quite interesting. Sincerely, Y . Alden T. Bryan M N LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont AREA CODE 802 863-2857 RE: Opinion No. PUD - Residential Development in AR District Dear Bill: May 28, 1974 05401 The Planning Commission has asked several questions concerning a recent planned unit development - residential proposal for the AR District. The first question is whether a development of this type is permitted in the AR District considering the language contained in Section 5.30 of the Zoning Regulations. It is clear from this section that PUD-R's are per- mitted if serviced by municipal water and sewer. The developer must connect to the services at his expense if one of two conditions is satisfied. Connection is permitted if it is projected in a capital program that the area will be serviced by municipal utilities. The second possibility permitting development is if the Planning Commission and City Council determine that the requirements of Section 12.002 of the Zoning Regulations are met by the developer. The fourteen general standards set forth in Section 12.002 would be the applicable criteria. Based upon the above, it would be my opinion that if the Planning Commission and the Council feel the requirements of Section 12.002 of our zoning regulations are met by the developer, the proposal would be permitted in the AR District. The second question posed concerns recreational uses such as tennis courts or swimming pools as part of the PUD-R. Unfortunately, in researching this question, it is apparent to me that our present zoning ordinance has some very serious deficiencies. Nowhere are accessory uses permitted. Since there is language in each of our district sections to the effect that uses not expressly permitted are prohibited., a literal interpretation of the ordinance would preclude any type of accessory use including tennis courts, swimming pools and perhaps even unattached garages. There are two ways in which the situation could be handled. r EWING & SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- May 28, 1974 The first is to require variance applications for any accessory use. It is arguable that a landowner is prevented from using his property for the permitted uses in the district if he can't also have customary accessory uses. The second possibility, which I strongly recommend, is to amend the present ordinance. As you know, there are several provisions which require correction and clarification and we should proceed as soon as possible with these housekeeping amend- ments. The amendment would permit customary accessory uses in all districts. Although the amendment process can be quite lengthy, some immediate relief is offered. On July lst, certain amendments to the Vermont Planning and Development Act become effective, including an amendment to 24 VSA §4443(c). The amend- ment would require the Zoning Administrator to submit any zoning permit applications to the Council if the application were affect- ed by pending amendments to the zoning ordinance. The Council would have the prerogative to authorize the issuance of the zon- ing permit after public notice and hearing even though the zoning amendments were not yet adopted and in effect. I would encourage that we proceed with amendments to the ordinance since we are vulnerable in many areas including not permitting accessory uses. I think the above answers the question concerning the pro- posed swimming pool and tennis court for the PUD-R proposal in the AR District. I am assuming these facilities would only be available for the use of the inhabitants of the development. If it is open to persons outside of the development and income is received, I would conclude it is a commercial use, and not a customary accessory use. Very truly yours, �2� 1'� �, Richard A. Spokes RAS:nm M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICIIARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: RIDGEWOOD ESTATES Conformance with zoning regulations as reviewed by this office. DATE: AUGUST 7, 1974 DATA: Area zoned AR District, proposed uses allowed PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL 1. Section 5.304, Specific Standards: Parcel contains 57 acres - conforms Density proposed, 114 units - conforms 2. Section 5.305. Permitted Uses 100 townhouse units and 14 single-family units - conforms 3. Section 5.307, Planning Commission Approval Required Parcel to be 'served by two road openings 4. Section 11.00, Dimensional Requirements Waivers required by Planning Commission: a. Front yard requirement - 75' One complex is set -back 70' from edge of blacktop portion of road. b. Storage building - side yard required, 75' and rear yard required, 50'. Building is approximately 25' from property line. 5. Section 11.20 applies (minor streams) Recreation building is 70' and one single family lot has a minor stream running through it. 6. Section 11.35 applies if M ey rs Lane is a private road All 14 lots would require a waiver. 2Zyycd /�v'r• ir,e--` . 9 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: AUGUST 6, 1974 JData on single family lots: Due to the fact that no structures are shown, the Planning Commission will be able to concern itself with the dimensional requirements (some units will require a waiver). Would suggest that the requirements of RI be applied for all 14 lots. V/7. Section 12.00 Sub -section 4 - the proposed name of Myers Lane is in conflict with an existing street (Myers Court). The two proposed streets should be set off as a 60' R.O.W. (these could be deeded city streets in the future) . i LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWING AREA CODE 802 RICHARD A. SPOKES July 19, 1974 863-28S7 Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion No. 63 PUD-R Procedure Dear Bill: The Planning Commission has asked what procedure should be followed in considering PUD-R proposals in the Agricultural Rural District. PUD-R's are only permitted if service by municipal water and sewer. See Section 5.30 of the Zoning Regulations. The developer must connect to the services at his own expense provided it is projected in a capital pro- gram that the subject area will be serviced by municiapl utilities. In the absence of a capital program, the Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the requirements of Section 12.002 A of the Zoning Regulations are met by the developer. I would judge this requirement to be a prerequisite to formal action by the Planning Commission on the subdivision application. The following steps would be appropriate in considering PUD-R applications in the AR District: 1. The Zoning Administrator should familiarize the developer with the 14 criteria set forth in Section 12.002 A of the Zoning Regulations. 2. If either the Council or Planning Commission would like any studies or opinions from City officials, these should be requested immediately. Note criteria No. 4 requires the City engineer to approve a highway and traffic circulation plan. In regard to criteria No. 5, perhaps the school board should be asked to present a report on the proposed development. The Council and Planning Commission may want a report from the Natural Resources Committee concerning criteria 7. EWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -2- July 19, 1974 3. The developer should submit a complete subdivision application which must include all data required by Sections 202 and 503 of the subdivision regulations. 4. Immediately upon filing of the application, a public hearing should be scheduled after at least 15 days public notice in the Burlington Free Press. The public notice must also be posted in at least one public place at least 15 days prior to the hearing. 5. The hearing, in its initial phases, would be conducted jointly by the Planning Commission and Council. The 14 criteria should first be discussed, and each criteria should be covered separately, and in order. I would think the concentration should be on factors which would normally be considered in determining whether public water and sewer should be extended to the subject area. In other words, the same items which would have a bearing in considering a proposed capital program which includes the extension of municipal services to the subject area should be discussed. The Council and Planning Commission should then make separate determinations as to whether the developer complies with the 14 criteria, and I would suggest that both bodies include within their own minutes specific findings to support their decision. 6. If both bodies determine that the criteria have been met, the Planning Commission then should proceed with considera- tion of the subdivision application. Approval of the application by the Planning Commission would automatically include the modifi- cation of the South Burlington zoning regulations. These modifica- tions must be confined to dimensional requirements set forth in Section 11 of the zoning regulations. 7. A site plan review should also be conducted simultaneously by the Planning Commission with its consideration of the subdivision application. A work session with the developer may be appropriate to determine what material the developer should submit and what study should be obtained from various City officials. If a work session is desired, both the Council and Planning Commis- sion should be present. It is absolutely essential that consideration of the 14 criteria be done in an orderly fashion and as expediently as possible. Once the formal subdivision application is filed, 0 EWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -3- July 19, 1974 action must be taken by the Planning Commission within 45 days of the date of application. Both the Council and Planning Commission could vote separately at the same meeting, but I would suggest that each include within the minutes their own findings and support for their respective decisions. Another possibility in considering the proposed subdivision is to have the Council and Planning Commission consider and decide upon the 14 criteria before the developer files his formal subdivision application. My only hesitancy in recommend- ing this procedure is the possibility of undue delay, and perhaps additional time would need to be consumed by both bodies. I, would think it should also be our objective not to force the developer to make duplicate presentations, which preliminary consideration of the 14 criteria may require. Very truly yours, _Z3 Richard A. Spokes RAS:nm ( J� )��, * -z� . August 5, 1974 Mr. Farrar made a motion to address a letter to the State's Attorney and a copy to the Governor to prosecute traffic violators on Williston and Shelburne Roads. Mr. Merrill seconded said motion which passe unanimously. Mr. Merrill suggested to Chief Carter that a letter be written to someone who has been robbed as a follow-up. Mrs. Neubert asked if on the traffic enforcement, can they do it with the staff they have now. He stated he cannot do anything more than what they are now doing. Mr. Cimonetti stated that if the City is to have stricter enforcing of the speed limits on Williston and Shelburne Roads, something would have to give. He would like to see an immediate and occasional repeat of a strict enforcement of the speed limit on those streets so people will know. There was discussion, re: crack -down to be on Williston and Shelburne Roads and to give warnings. There was also discussion, re: security force at the Airport with regard to the South Burlington Police. RESIGNATION OF MR. SCHMUCKER FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Flaherty read Mr. Schmuckers letter of resignation dated July 24, 1974. The Council unanimously accepted Mr. Schmuckers resignation with regret. DISCUSSION ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Dr. Farrar stated that in preparation of impact studies and data as stated in section 12.002 of the City Zoning Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments that the information consider the effect on the entire city not just the area of development. This information to be forwarded to the developer of a portion of the Myers property at Dorset and Swift Streets which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council on August 7, 1974. Dr. Farrar made the following motion: That in considering Article V, Sections 5.30 and Sections 12.002A of the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council will attend the Special Planning Commission meeting and take part in the ensuing discussions indicating where it thinks that sufficient discussions have been held on each of the fourteen points of Section 12.002A. However, the Council shall take no formal action at that meeting. If the Planning Commission approves the information submitted under Section 12.002A, the City Council shall within one week submit in writing to the developer a request for any additional informa- tion that any council member might require. Upon receipt of this information the Council shall, within 14 days, schedule a meeting to act upon the information requested. At this meeting the Council shall act on each of tie fourteen points of Section 12.002A separately with an affirmative vote required on each of t e fourteen points. Mrs. Neu ert seconded this motion. It passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road South Burlington on Wednesday, August 7, 1974. Council Chairman Flaherty called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Council members present were Chairman Flaherty, Paul A. Farrar, Catherine M. Neubert, William J. Cimonetti, and Duane E. Merrill. Planning Commissioners present were Chairman Mary Barbara Maher, Sidney B. Poger, William B. Wessel and John B. Dinklage. MEMBERS ABSENT Planning Commissioners Robenstein and Levesque. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Adminis- trator; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Fred Mitchell, City Planner; Frederick G. Blais, Alfred Calcagni, Paul L. Flinn, Attorney Richard C. Blum, Paul R. Casavina, Jr., William Schuele, Paul D. Heald, Nancy Neubert, Charlotte Marsh, Arlene Krapcho, Richard Bodette, Richard Myette and Jack Tabaka, Free Press Reporter. VIEWING OF CORRECTIONS CENTER Chairman Flaherty announced that he had heard from Peter A. Profera, Director of Community Correctional Centers for the State of Vermont, who invited the Council members to meet on Monday, August 12, 1974, at 4:30 P.M. to view the new facility on Swift Street. Dr. Farrar said he would not be able to make it and Mr. Merrill was not sure, but it was agreed that all the members who could make it would be present. CONSIDERATION_ OF ARTICLE XII, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS - SECTION 12.002, STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS Chairman Flaherty outlined the method to be followed during the meeting, saying that each of the 14 points would be considered separately, that questions and remarks should be kept pertinent to the point being considered, and that there would be no vote until all items had been reviewed. If the Planning Commission approves what has been submitted the City Council will wait one week to see if they want any additional information. If the Planning Commission votes negatively the matter will not come back before the Council. 0 2 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING IAUGUST 7, 1974 Mr. Poger asked if just Ridgewood Estates was being considered at this meeting and Dr. Farrar said no, it must be determined that all requirements of Section 12.002 will be met by the developer taking into consideration the proposed development and any other proposed or planned development. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #1 as follows: POINT #1 "Will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination it shall at least consider: the elevation of land above sea level; and in relation to the flood plains, the nature of woils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; the slope of the land and its effect on effluents; the availability of streams for disposal of effluents; and the applicable health and water resources department regulations." Alfred A. Calcagni, representing the developers Calcagni, Blais and Casavina, began the presentation. He introduced Paul Flinn, who was representing Terry Boyle, landscape architect, Richard Bodette, of Rist and Frost Engineering Company of Glens Falls, New York, and Richard Blum, Attorney for the developers. Mr. Calcagni reported that the site plan has had favorable review at two work sessions and suggested improvements have been made. Mr. Flinn pointed out on the map the site in relation to the rest of South Burlington, saying it contained 57 acres which borders Swift and Dorset Streets. He point out also the proposed r-o-w off Dorset Street and the access off Swift Street. He showed where there was a 15% to 20% grade change and where the low wet meadow area was. The access off Swift Street was planned for access to the single family units with another road to the pool, tennis courts, and recreadion areas. He pointed out the garden areas and the bike paths. Mr. Flinn noted that PUD R requires 50 acres, the area contains 57. Also the density of 114 units was permissible on 57 acres and the proposed height of buildings at 2 1/2 stories was permissible. Mr. Bodette then spoke, saying the sanitary sewer is going to connect to the municipal system. In regard to Air Pollution, the units would be heated by natural gas and of course electricity would be used for all other utilites. Mr. Calcagni said a contained storm drainage system with sub -service would be installed.. Mr. Flinn said the elevation of the land was 68' from one corner to another, the high elevation is 368 and the low 300. 3 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Mr. Poger asked if the stream would empty into the proposed pond. Mr. Flinn answered that the stream will'run into and out of the pond, that a constant flow would be maintained. He also reported that there was no indication the area is located in a Flood Plain. Dr. Farrar noted that basically the water would go into the same streams as now, and Mr. Bodette explained that the natural water course goes into Potash Brook, the roof and site drainage would be going into pipes, catch basins and culverts. All remaining areas would flow into the existing water course, through catch basins, pipes and culverts to the stream. a Mr. Poger asked if there was not,�pond wouldn't it just be a bog and Mr. Bodette said there would be no bog. Mr. Dinklage asked if the developers would be running surplus water off the property and Mr. Bodette said no. Dr. Farrar asked if the ratio of total runoff would be changed and Mr. Bodette said that because of the paving the amount would arrive at point of discharge rapidly. It would not be a problem. Dr. Farrar asked if the area served by the construction of drainage was essentially the same after construction as before and Mr. Bodette said yes. Dr. Farrar asked if it all runs to the left and then runs to the right, what happens? Mr. Schuele asked how much more water will run off to the stream. Mr. Flinn said he did not have the answer to these questions. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Flinn to get the answer and put it in the record. Mrs. Neubert expressed her concern about salt from the parking lot polluting the water. Mr. Flinn said they wanted to put in the covenants that there be no salt used on the parking lots. Kay then said that we cannot have salt run-off into our streams. Mr. Flinn then explained the construction of the catch basins which are designed with a low point and pumps to take care of sediment. Mr. Calcagni noted that the length of discharges affect the amount of salt that gets into a stream. Mrs. Neubert questioned the legality of constructing a road three or four places across a stream. She said we should not have any construction within 50' from a stream. She asked Mr. Ward to check the ordinance as to the restrictions of building these roads across a stream. Mr. Poger said he understood the stream could not be altered in any way and that must mean roads. Attorney Spokes said he felt it would be unduly restricted to interpret the ordinance this way, the question is, does a road constitute construction. Chairman Flaherty asked Mr. Spokes to check up on this. 4 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Mr. Dinklage remarked that on Swift Estates a tennis court had been built where a stream exists. Mr. Myette of Swift Estates informed him that,the tennis court was located 70' from the stream and Mr. Dinklage said he stood corrected. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Bodette to be more specific about drainage in the area of the townhouses. Mr. Bodette pointed out on the map where the pipes were to be located and the sizes of the pipes, as well as location and type and size of culverts and catch basins. Mr. Wessel asked if the soil types on the property had been checked out. Mr. Bodette explained the types of soil and clay on the property. He said it was in good shape for the type of construc- tion being planned. Mr. Calcagni said he felt there would be no problem. Mr. Wessel said that from Mr. Bodette's description of the type of soil on the property it appeared to meet the criteria of what the State of Vermont calls "severe" and on which the State recommends no developing. Mr. Wessel then asked the developers if they would be developing a soil map. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Wesell what his concern was and Mr. Wessel said water in the cellar, etc. Mr. Calcagni said we have always built on this type of soil in South Burlington with no trouble. Mr. Poger asked if there had been any condominiums built on this type of land. Mr. Calcagni said the land is always checked before construction. Mr. Poger wondered if the load bearing capacity would be similar to that for private homes. Chairman Flaherty instructed Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, to contact the Regional Planning Commission for any material and informa- tion on"severe" soils or other pertinent data. He asked if there was any other discussion on this and since there wasn't said they would proceed to Point #2. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #2 as follows: POINT #2 "Does have sufficient water available for the reasonably foresee- able needs of the -subdivision or development." Mr. Calcagni read in full a letter dated August 6, 1974 from Mr. R. W. Emerick, Executive Director of the Champlain Water District which supplys water to the City of South Burlington. The letter stated, in essence, that the water requirements of the planned Ridgewood Estates development will create no burden on the existing water facilities in the area. The letter is marked exhibit 1 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. 5 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #3 as follows: POINT #3 "Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result." Mr. Flinn said the developers have an Erosion Control statement. This has been obtained, is marked Exhibit 2, and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Wessel questioned Mr. Flinn as to whether the developers had researched studies on soil erosion such as the Vergennes Associates material. He felt all relevent material on soil erosion should be studied. He asked Mr. Flinn how drainage from the road would be controlled. Mr. Flinn described how the road would be constructed, with an 18,in.gravel base, carrying the gravel beyond the shoulders and crowning the road so the drainage would run off. Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, was asked if the proposed construction of the road plans met with his approval. He said yes, it was planned to the standards set by the city. A sketch of the road standards is marked Exhibit #3 and attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #4 as follows: POINT #4 "Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways existing or proposed. Plan must be approved by City Engineer." Mr. Flinn pointed out that the access road on Swift Street and the road on Dorset Street had adequate sight distance. Mr. Calcagni-referred to a traffic count study that was taken on the streets which shows a peak hourly volume on Dorset Street as 314 vehicles per hour and on Swift Street as 170 vehicles per hour. The counts had been taken under City Manager's direction on a Thursday July 25 and Friday, July 26, 1974. The sheet showing the traffic count figures is marked Exhibit #4 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. He also referred to a sheet taken from the American Association of State Highway Officials study of Arterial Highways in Urban Areas which sets the high rage of traffic at 540 vehicles per hour per lane. This sheet is marked Exhibit #5 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. C. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Mr. Flinn said assuming 2 cars per unit and all on the road at once the traffic generated would not meet what is considered the peak. Dr. Farrar asked City Manager if Swift and Dorset Streets meet the minimum requirements of major streets. Mr. Szymanski said he felt the widths of the two streets were adequate. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Szymanski if the width was the only criteria used in determining what is a major street. Mr. Cimonetti asked City Manager Szymanski what the description of a major street is. Mr. Szymanski said Swift and Dorset streets were certainly close to major streets, and then said he did not think the development would overload the streets. He said he was concerned about the Y intersection, feeling it could be a problem, but one that could be easily corrected. Mr. Calcagni said coming into the Y at a 90° angle corrects it. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Calcagni if the land adjacent to the proposed development was to be developed in the future could the Ridgewood Estates road or roads be used by the new developer for access. John Dinklage asked if use of the road by adjacent developers could be an item included in the Association papers when they are drawn up. Attorney Spokes said the developers could be asked to keep an open mind on such a request. Mr. Paul R. Casavina, Jr., one of the developers asked to speak, and explained that the units being planned were not condominiums but townhouses. The owner holds full interest in the exterior and interior of the dwelling plus a defined lot for his personal use. Each owner has equal interest in the open space, swimming pool, tennis courts, bike trails, etc. After development the CBC Realty Corporation will turn over to the Ridgewood Estates Corporation all of the open spaces, roads, bike trails, etc., which will be controlled by the owners. Mr. Poger asked if when the agreement is signed and the developers turn the development over to the owners would it be possible to insert in the agreement use of the access roads by other developers. Attorney Spokes thought not. Attorney Blum said the plan was to have the Articles of Association held in perpetuity. He was not definite as to whether such a stipulation could be included in the Articles of Association. `pCharlotte . Marsh asked if the townhouses were separate buildings or if they were under one roof. Mr. Calcagni explained that the walls between the buildings were common property but all other parts of the units belongs to the owners. Mr. Blum explained to Charlotte that the common wall would be something like a common driveway that might be used by adjacent property owners. Going back to the use of Ridgewood Estates' roads Arlene Krapcho wondered if the roads were to be used by other developers shouldn't they be designed differently, wider, for instance. Mr. Szymanski said they would'be adequate as presently planned. I 7 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUG. 7, 1974 Mr. Poger asked if the area on both sides of Swift Street was developed in the near future would the existing roads take care of the increased traffic. Mr. Szymanski said it would depend on the density of future development. Mr. Dinklage asked the City Attorney if we had any authority to review the development's by-laws, transfers of land, etc. Attorney Spokes said that traditionally the By -Laws are reviewed. Chairman Flaherty requested the City Attorney, the Zoning Administrator, and the City Manager to give the Planning Commission any specifics they would like to have incorporated in the By -Laws. Chairman Flaherty asked City Planner Mitchell how much traffic he thought the road (in the development) could handle. Mr. Mitchell said he would research this. Bill Schuele said he felt this should be carefully weighed. Mr. Poger wondered if the city would be able to widen Swift and Dorset Street in the future if widening was needed. Mr. Cimonetti wondered if any thought had been given to a method. of stopping people from cutting corners by going through the private street. Mr. Flinn said the road design was such that speed limit would probably be under 30 miles per hour. Mr. Szymanski ask what the objection was to keeping the streets private streets. Mr. Calcagni spoke of the added expense in using more black top, building curbs, etc. If curbs were installed as suggested by Dr. Farrar Mr. Flinn said that would mean more catch' basins. Mr. Blais explained that the plowing equipment would be available at all times to take care of the plowing, that the Association would be well equipped to handle any problems that would arise. They would have to maintain the open spaces anyway so it would not be too much of an added expense to maintain the roads. On Point #4, Chairman Flaherty reminded the City Manager that he was to research the definition of major streets, City Planner Mitchell was to gather material on traffic figures and how the development would affect traffic and City Attorney Spokes was to look into the matter of reviewing the By -Laws and the possibility of inclusion in the By -Laws of a stipulation regarding the use of the access roads by adjacent developers. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #5 as follows: POINT #5 "Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of a municipality to provide educational services." CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Mr. Calcagni presented the Council and P-lanning Commission members with copies of a letter dated July 23, 1974 with attachments on Community Economic Impact &Expense Impact which the developers submitted to the South Burlington School Board at its meeting of August 14, 1974. Chairman Flaherty asked the Council and Planning Commission members if they wanted to wait and review the School Boards recommenda- tion before considering this point. All agreed to wait for the recommendation. However there was a short discussion on this point. Mr. Blais briefly touched on the figures on page 4 of the material that had been presented to the School Board. This material is marked Exhibit #6 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Blais said a development of this density generally produces a cash surplus in both services and education expenses. Mr. Wesell said if we have more developments, could we project what the economic impact would be on the schools. Mr. Blais said that the city's experience with Georgetown Apart- ments, Forest Park Condominiums and Manor Woods apartments did not make any sizeable impact on the city services or schools. Mrs. Neubert felt this was not a fair comparison, since in the above units there were very few 3 bedroom apartments or condominiums, that a townhouse would be expensive, that there could possibly be more of an impact with this development as planned. Chairman Flaherty said we should wait for the School District's report. Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #6 as follows: POINT #6 "Will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of local government to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities." Mrs. Neubert asked if the city owned the sewer at Potter's development. Mr. Szymanski said yes. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the city had problems servicing and maintaining utilities on private land. Attorney Spokes said this presented no problems since we obtain easements to go on to private property for repairs. Mr. Cimonetti then asked if there was conflict with municipal owned services on private streets. Mr. Szymanski said we have had no trouble in the past. 9 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Chairman Flaherty read in full a letter from Fire Chief Melvin A. Monell dated August 5, 1974, which stated,in essence that the development of Ridgewood Estates, at the present time, would create little or no burden on the South Burlington Fire Department, that an adequate water supply is available and the location of the development would mean a minimal response time for the fire department. The letter is marked Exhibit #7 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Kay Neubert said she wanted to ask about the 8" pipe. Could an 8" pipe be extended into another development? Would it be attached to another the same size or would a larger pipe be needed. Mr. Calcaqni said the pipe at the present pitch will handle 2000 people. Mr. Cimonetti asked what is the capacity of an 8" pipe specifically. Mr. Bodette did some figuring and said the figure was 785,000 gallons per day. Dr. Farrar wondered if when extending the sewer line to Kennedy Drive the developers would be willing to install a pipe larger than 8". Mr. Calcagni said there would be quite a difference, an increase, in cost of installation since an 8" pipe could be handled by hand whereas a 12" pipe requires the use of machinery. Mr. Wessel asked if the city has the capacity to take care of the sewerage generated by the development if all the lots were developed, and Mr. Cimonetti wondered what the impact would be if Phase V were added to the system also. Chairman Flaherty instructed Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, to get together a projection of the treatment plant capacity taking into account Phase V sewage amount. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Bodette to point out on the map where the sewer line was going to.be located. Mr. Bodette did so on one map and Mrs. Neubert asked him to point the line out on the town map which he did. Mr. Wessel ask if the developers could predict how many people would occupy the units. Mr. Blais quoted the figures from the Expense Impact from the material presented to the School District as follows: 228 adults 78 children (twice the no. of school children) 306 total added population Mr. Blais said the figure could be off some, but that he had researched the Nadworny Report that was compiled in 1973. Mr. Wessel said we do not need to be dependent on a local survey, we should have figures from a national survey. 10 CITY!COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 It was pointed out that the city has about 3000 housing units and under 3000 children in school. The City Planner was requested to review these figures, find out the number of school children we have and any other pertinent informa- tion. Mr. Dinklage referred to Point #4 (Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways existing or proposed. Plan must be approved by City Engineer), saying an unsafe condition will exist for pupils walking from the proposed development to the High School. His remark raised the question as to exactly how far from'the high school the development was. He wondered if the developer should be asked to install sidewalks. Mr. Myette remarked that the pupils to the high school were bussed from the Swift Estates. Chairman Flaherty said he felt a good point had been brought out. He asked Mr. Szymanski to ask the School District if children from the proposed development would be bussed to the school. Mrs. Maher asked City Manager why he felt so strongly about the development having private roads. Mr. Szymanski said it was because he could see, in the future, the city being responsible for the roads. Mrs. Neubert asked how many times this has happened. Mr. Szymanski said the roads in Queen City Park was one example. Mrs. Maher said she thought there was a saving in the city's operational cost if the roads in the new development were private. Mr. Szymanski pointed out that Swift Estates and Dorset Heights had private roads. Mrs. Maher said yes, but you feel we might incur costs in the future. Mr. Szymanski said yes, for instance, we would have to plow people out if there was an emergency. Mrs. Maher said she wanted to direct a question to the developer and asked Mr. Flinn why the developers wanted private roads. Mr. Flinn said a public road would cost more, that we are talking increased storm system and curbs. Mr. Blais said he felt public roads would destroy the concept of an Association,- that they would have all the equipment to plow itself out since the Association could control it. Attorney Blum said in measuring the concern about being forced to take the care of the streets the members would have a feeling of privacy. Mr. Casavina said the parties living in such a development want their privacy, they are paying for the open spaces and the recreational areas, there is a cost for this and their use of their own property is a prime concern. Mr. Neubert then asked Mr. Szymanski why he felt concern, and he said we still might have to plow in an emergency. Mr. Cimonetti said he shared Mr. Scymanski's concern mentioning what if the city decided not to provide police protection. It could happen. 11 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Flaherty read all of Point #7 as follows: POINT #7 AUGUST 7, 1974 "Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural area, and conforms to proposed pedestrian trail system." Mr. Flinn noted that the City's Master Plan does not propose any natural areas, parks, or pedestrian trails for this parcel of land. He said they are planning the plantings and green spaces to make the dP_vp 1 nnmen it i n�•lard oriented. Tic ' �-ti. aaC: Saiu 1..11C1C Were no rare Vt' l.rreplacable plantings on the land. He pointed out on the map the proposed pedestrian ways, proposed plantings, where the carports would be located and how the back yards would be private. Mr. Schuele remarked that in a sense it is a private thing. There was no 15% public area set out. Where is the 15% compensation that should be made to the city. Attorney Blum said that in effect the public gains private space because so much of the land is open. It would not look all built up. Mr. Flinn said that recreation was being supplied to the residents, they would not be looking to the city for recreational facilities. Mr. Schuele again remarked on the city being able to use some of the open space, trails, etc. Attorney Spokes said this question comes up very often in a different form. He felt it should not be construed to be a mandatory requirement, rather a discretionary donation on the part of the developer. Mr. Poger asked if the recreational areas could be used by the public. Mr. Flinn said the Master Plan does not show it as such. Attorney Spokes said it is a recreation reservation neighborhood oriented, not city oriented. The intent is oriented to a specific area not to the whole city. Mr. Farrar asked if all this was germaine to the question. Chairman Flaherty said no.- Chairman Flaherty then requested the City Attorney to draft a letter stating the rights of the developer and the rights of the city in regard to the recreation area. He was also requested to forward the letter to Mr. Scheule. Attorney Blum asked if the developers could also submit a letter and Chairman Flaherty said yes. Mr. Schuele said the Natural Resources Committee is concerned about getting open spaces for the public. Mrs. Neubert said it would concern us if some development doesn't have any green area set aside. 12 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Arlene Krapcho asked if the public could go by bicycle trail from Spear to Dorset Street. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was a pedestrian trail system. Mr. Schuele said the pedestrial trail does not go over this area. Mr. Dinklage said the trail system will change as the area grows. Could we ask for you to consider proposed changes to accomodate people in this development. Mr. Schuele said yes. Mr. Cimonetti asked if bicycle trails could be planned for the area. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Schuele to look into the fact of bicycle trails there. Mr. Calcagni said he was sure bicyclists would use the bike trails, that not much could be done about it. Mr. Flaherty then readin full Point #8 as follows: POINT 48 "Is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan under Chapter 91 of Title 24." Attorney Spokes was asked if the proposed plan was in conformance with the Master Plan. Mr. Spokes said he could see no discrepencies, and that he would check on it. Mr. Flaherty then read in full Point #9 as follows: POINT #9 "Housing types, costs, and characteristics appropriate to the most imminent housing needs of various social and economic groups as determined by the Planning Commission." Mr. Calcagni said he would like to explain just what these houses are. He said they would be two story units, with a stairwell to the second floor. He explained the layout of the rooms on both stories, saying that either the 2 or 3 bedroom units could have the same configuration. The units are wood framed, stained with asphalt shingles. The cost projection was from $42,000 to $45,000-$46,000. Mr. Calcagni read a letter from the firm of Smith Bell and Thompson, Incorporated, dated July 26, 1974 which outlined the need for this r type of housing units in South Burlington. This letter is marked Exhibit No. 8 whiah is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Calcagni read a letter dated July 25, 1974 from Janes & Jacob Real Estate which stated in part that the market could support additional housing starts now and for the immediate future. This letter is marked Exhibit #9 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Wessel asked if the letters could be from firms who would be sales agents for these houses. When told the answer was yes he said he would think the opinions could be colored. 13 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 Mrs. Neubert remarked that the Hickock, Boardman and Thompson letter does not relate to Point #9. Mr. Caloagni said he had other opinions. Mr. Blais said there is no such thing as a medium priced house here in this area but he said lower price homes are needed. He quoted from the Nadworny report and if South Burlington had no migration, no change other than births and deaths we would have a population of just under 12,000 by 1983. For such an increase we would need.465 units. We recently have added 100 units so there is still a need for approximately 365. He said every report studied leads them to be encouraged, that there will be a need for housing. At 11 P.M. Chairman Flaherty said he felt the meeting should be recessed until next Monday, August I?, 1974 at 8 P.M. Dr. Farrar said he was sorry, but he would be out of town and unable to attend. Mary Barbara Maher made a motion to recess at 11:05 P.M. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion which passed unanimously, and the meeting was recessed until Monday, August 12, 1974 at 8 P.M. Approved William J. Cimonetti, Clerk i & _j �Z_�k ?�4-1 rA�r�^►DI nrM �.j .W Z72 C, r] IDa0 V C 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT05AOI Mr. Fred Blais Ridgewood Estates South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Ridgewood Estates water supply Dear Sir: August 6, 1974 Please be advised that the Champlain Water District has in operation a 24-inch line running along Swift Street in the City of South Burlington to the intersection of Swift and Dorset Streets. The C.W.D. also owns all -inch line along Dorset Street extending from this intersection northerly to Zhe anproximate area of the Methodist Church. It is the policy of•the Champlain Water District to permit connections to these water mains, such connections to be under the jurisdiction and auspices of the South Burlington Water Department. Because of the size and location of these mains, it is reasonable to assume and predict that there is an adequate water supply in this area to meet all foreseeable present and future needs. The water requirements of the planned Ridgewood Estates development will create no burden on the existing water facilities in the area. Sincerely, /✓ . ��fYc.1tJ"C.Q-t� R. W. Emerick Executive Director RWE/sp cc: South Burlington Water Dept. 11I i 0 RIDGEWOOD ESTATES ROAD CONSTRUCTION The Ridgewood Estate road system will be privately built and maintained with funds provided by the management contract of the Property Owners Association. Roads are carefully aligned on the site for minimal site disturbance and maximum grades will be 5 percent. The basic specifications will be those of the Town of South Burlington. Erosion Control: The development will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. a. General: Sound site planning methods have beenemployed as the prime measure of controlling erosion. The building sites and the majority of roadways are located on slopes of under 7 percent. b. Roadways: All roadways are designed for under 5 percent in very few instances are cross slopes over 10 percent and where roads are cut into these slopes, the new contours will be a maximum of 1 on 2 1/2 to minimize erosion. These slopes will be seeded and mulched, and if required, because of ground water or angle of repose limitations for this soil, will be re-established at 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 slopes. In no case are slopes greater than 10 vertical feet anticipated. 0 If trees are to be saved at the top or bottom of a slope and, therefore, a 1 on 2 1/2 slope must be maintained. Several devices will be utilized: soddening, erosion net or chicken wire mesh adequately staked or plus or minus 4 inch timbers staked horizontally into the slope at about 4 foot intervals. Mineral soil cuts and fills will be dressed with 4 feet of wood soil and duff and seeded with grains and naturally with ferns that germinate readily in newly ex- posed humus. c.. Drainage Swales: Swales under 3 percent will be seeded: from 3 to 10 percent sod will be used in combination with staking and erosion netting at the hig-her percent slopes. Armoring with washed gravel may also be utilized near culvert inlets and outfalls depending upon grade characteristics. Where velocities or discharge warrants, concentrated volumes will be dispatched on the hill sides or directed to existing natural drainage ways. Water bars will be introduced to stabilize broad channels and prevent excessive erosion during the construction process. Silting will be a problem, however, temporary silt basins will be utilized if this becomes a problem in the course of construction. These will be large sections of concrete corrugated°metal pipe, plus or minus 4 feet deep, set in i drainage courses or outfalls to the storm drain system to prevent excessive distribution of fines during periods of concentrated run-off. d. Culverts: The minimum culverts size will be 12 inches of asphalt coated corrugated galvanized metal pipe. Larger sizes will be used where needed and will be a minimum of 15 inches. All culverts will have a minimum 3 foot coverage to protect against frost heaves. Larger size pipes will have flanged inlets and outfalls to facilitate appearance and minimize erosion on adjacent fill slopes. No culvert or storm drain pipe will outfall on fill slopes but will be dropped within the fill to discharge on undisturbed material at the toe of the slope. e. Miscellaneous Devices: Although not anticipated, berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains will'be utilized if required. Additional stabilization will occur with seeding, mulching and planting as indicated in that section. All of the above as well as the planting materials and methods will be included on the drawings and specifications issued to the contractor as working documents. In summary, everything required by sound engineering practice will be employed to protect the environment and present a pleasing aspect for a quality development. The development will not cause unrea$onable highway congestion or un- safe conditions with respect to the use of the highways. I.s 0 j i Rr its ! • _4-,�,� �� `��'••>j•\�'' ! { N�+r �t(����/ ���.(i r�l�� '� •�+--�>••-^�•�—j''-_� � o�� . 4yZ-��T, ��� � � � VJ �I i �r '-f�\ . �{`, •/ '. ' j^i;,i, � �� � L * .,.•.,i. r . •'�"'r•wr���•�.�._�..•--1 � c`Y /'1' f I •�� N. IQ :�v,:a � �!w> •yiL� f � n\.7LK i.s�> �^;T71. r1 Wlz 1 Iva �LJ� ��Q .V `z RH. /�Z IrD d,o i Pe-4 /7c, w 1 �/O1 � � �/ . ��n rxi! �✓ Td �c e�i ! 7 .3�� i�/i7 �� _At� �Sw � l •� / 70 1/Ph� o�� DESIGN CONTROLS AND C =iMlA U3 in ihu Cca loov 50. a+ I •:S�•%�/5/�.6 i alA s J%V f00 600 wo KOO /Zoo 400 I KEY I//�/.......• zoo A..ren,ogo of ,,-&vA, / FREEWAYS O - tghl cross Iroffir no sgna/ cm�roJ IIo b - hya;" i r obi 9''A 1 C= WPM port' bnrt _ I EXPRESSWAYS AT GRADE �b MAJOR STREETS am 4w fm Soo ROAD 1200 ,ems Dtsgvr tour Copacily—Vehicki per four v� URBAN ARTIMAL HIGHWAYS RANGE IN LANE DESIGN CAPACITIES Figure C-9 •C� o K/ P �C c'BD 3���,l�,Gon C fz✓�,� /2•,�f� .moo Y/��.G.•�►e I NwM.Mgi M� 1 I i Z � IM L W(� RMe, � I-, July 23, 1974 a ":v. Prod V2. e Supt. So Lll:°lincton School District . :Duth Burlington, Vt. &,Ibjccts Rid paood Est ,es Dove opz:ant L-Imet. on Schools Dear Fred I %X',Md cpprociato the oppurt".znity to pro ,ant to Uo School Board tho gollotaln Projectiona regarding the ir?aet on the ahool Oystcm our proposed Project =uld Nava. Townhc=s Undiv-Uual olme ship) J('✓` }{a,� thro-aww Wodroom rjjj,�s for a ta%z ij of I?� �vW ^ Way Vv.0 i Vd a 0j Gi V YL7 0000 4 52 0;aroo--s 10 you,-- b,^z:vom nni.ta moo; a tot--r , 01.. a0 bc-rcom3 5 ono boclwoo:a units for a totalog..., Total iownhoms u�w'"Ocvs.....,,274 bedrooms Individaal ono acro lots (incIi ri&a? o-,vMOr shnjp) B~d an theSi. G tarts czpoience Un to L-wald b3 i ihoM:Po: II 101-3 tMOG iou:: io4 a tat" off .:........................... rn bo4-•ooras ;0 Total Indivi&,.al Tot D.R.... 56 Bedrooms 07 AU ,.=Z r: M, C?X2D P.,O C111...........0...330 Blood on th-3 frctnr oZ .102 Cchool children r.�" 'ccc:�^Qc:s per tha co;::xi. UAZOa roport ort.. lod ��I-7,2-et 02 �ai+."r'.'v..:! on :+v.:001 V1as to tho Oouth D'WIinCton School Eaarrd on lip:i3. 13 1973�:1QN�f the foilow:Lng iw.=c t ri3:+uruo: 9 330 Sodrooas tirao .102 ocrar13 33.6 ^ahool ah!l.c?*an lbspect2un7 sub ,iv d j COMMUNITY ECONOMIC IMPACT ECONOMIC IMPACTS: INCOME TOWN HOUSES: 100 Townhouses average F.M.Y. $45, 000.00 Appraisal Value 22,500.00 22,500® 6.33 Tax Rate - Breakdown: 1. School @ 4.69 $1, 055.25 2. City 0 164 369.00 1, 100 Units average $1#424.25 totals INDIVIDUAL UNITS: 14 ® average F.M.Y. $75,000.00 Appraisal Value 37,500.00 $37,5oo ® 6.33 Tax Rate - Breakdown: 1. School ® 4.69 $1,758.75 2. City 0 1.64 615.00 U73-.` 5 14 units average $2,373.75 totals TOTAL INCOME: School District ® 4,69 100 Townhouses ® 1,055.25 $105,525.00 14 Ind. Units ® 1,758.75 24,622.5o Total School Income City ® $164 100 Townhouse 0 369.00 $36,900.00 14 Ind, units ® 615,00 8,61o.0o r Total City Income Total Annual, City and School income `J il; $1 x424.25/D.U. M2,425.00 $2,373.75 $332 232.50 $130,147.50 $45,510.00 17 ,657.50 3 EXPENSE IMPACT School Total School Children 39 0 1,200.00/child cost - $40p800.00 City HiP�way - Capital and operating costs by developer and Assc. Sewer - Operating/Maintenance cost paid out of use charges and assessments. Capital installation costs by developer. Water - Operating/Maintenance cost Paid out Of Capital installation costs by devel users charges. r. Fire Dept. - No known added operating costs as result of this development. Per capita costs $10,00 X , 306 - $31060.00 Police Dept. - No known added operating costs as result of this development. Per capita costs $30,30 g 306 . $9,371.80 Recreation Dept, - Present per capita operating budget equals M2 per unit of population. This development$d 5 max Population of adds a 228 adults 78 children (twice school children) �SO Total added population Total Recreation Cost $1000.50 Total City Expense Impact $13,632.30 TRIAL BALANCE - ECONOMIC IMPACT BASED ON COMRMM PROJECT School Districts Total Income ® h.69 rate Expense (34 students-® 1,2oo.00 ea.) $130,14 7.50 h O,800.00 Net Surplus $89,%7.50 City: Total Incorle ® $1.64 rate Total Expenses (based on present per $45,510.00 capita costs applicable) • 13 63200 Net Surplus K'O Total City and School District expanse available ;or'tuturo capital income over operating expenditure $121,225.00 School District Contingency: If a contingency for a 100% error were used in computing the economic impact on school system trial balance would be as follows: Total Incorx� @ $4,,69 rate $130,147.50 Expense (68 students $10200.00) 812600.00 Net Surplus $ 48, 52t7.50 City Contingency: If the Assumption were made that the economic impact to city operations -,ire not solely restricted to those items ennumerated above but equally on all city operations the trial balance would be as follows: Total Income @ $1.64 rate $45, 510.00 Per Capita Operation costs based on $882,000.00 is $88.20 times 3o6 added population 26,982.20 Net surplus $18,520.80 MELVIN A. MONELL "'"='1�11 �,..�...,. 86a .,455 CHIEF �"All ! DORSET STREET OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER i CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. August 5, 19 74 Chief Melvin A. Monell So. Burlington Fire Department Subject: Ridgewood Estates Cornwx of Swift and Dorset Sts, Dear Sirs, It is the decision of this Department that the development of Ridgewood Estates, at the present time; would create little or no burden on The South Burlington Fire Department, An adequate water supply is available and the location of the development would mean a minimal response time for the department. out Sincerely, Chief Melvin A. Monell t INSURANCE REAL ESTATE Smith Bell & Th ompson INCORPORATED 102 SOUTH VANOOSKI AVENUE, BURUNOTON, VERMONT 06401 802-668-46W v July 26, 1974 Mr. Fred Blais CBC Realty $ Development Inc. 86 Suburban Square South Burlington, Vermont Dear Fred: Pursuant to your request for data relative to the demand for housing in South Burlington, specifically in the above $40,000 price range, I submit the following. South Burlington generally, and more specifically the southern portion of the city, is considered to be the most desirable area in Greater Burlington to live. We estimate that 50 to 60% of our clients initially request to look on the south side of Burlington for housing. This encompasses both people presently residing in this area and newcomers. Unfortunately, because of the demand, most often we have very little property to show in the above described area. Our agency, in 1973, sold 14 properties located in the subject section of South Burlington. We estimate that we could have doubled that number, had there been availability. In checking with Hickok & Boardman and Lang, our two nearest competitors, their experience is much the same. The records of the Multiple Listing Service for the past 12 months, which incidentally consists of 42 Realtor agencies and 110 full time agents, show that approximately '85 homes were sold in South Burlington with 62% sold on the south side. Forty seven of the total sold for over $401,000. MLS SB INSURANCE REAL ESTATE W Mr. Fred Blais Page Two July 26, 1974 With specific reference to your proposed Ridgewood Estates, I can say with considerable confidence that the residential lots you are proposing will be sold almost immediately upon construc- tion of services to them. The condominium portion of the proposed development will be successful, primarily because of the location. Consideration is also given to the anticipated fall start of the project. This, combined with location, allows your project to be the first bonafide rondo-P.U.D, project in the area and should result in the sale of the 94 units over a three to four year period, barring any unforseen, drastic changes in our economy. I hope the preceeding is helpful in your evaluation of the marketing potential of your project. RAM/efm Since ely , ,A6 (R. A. 14yette Vice Pres. $ Gen'l. Aigr. Real Estate Division t + + tines J aco INC. REAL ESTATE Zj) TEL. 802 863-5516 203 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 July 25, 1974 South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vt. Attention: Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman Dear Mrs. Maher: Our Agency has been requested to comment on housing types,**' . costs and characteristics of the most imminent need in the area. Generally lower priced homes are of the most imminent need. However, it is recognized that with present costs of development these can not be delivered as new units to market without signi- ficant financial subsidy. Housing starts in the last 3 or 4 years have been fewer than might be considered normal. Therefore any additional housing starts at this time are needed to offer supply and choice to the market place. Any development technique that can assist in keeping costs down in face of present inflation should be encouraged. However, houses of the mid and upper income ranges are frequently bought by existing citizens, therefore, leaving existing units in the market for mid and lower income range buyers. In general the market can support additional housing starts now and for the immediate future. Respectfully submitted, �. or Peter L. Jacob 6altor JANES 6 JACOB, INC. PLJ/rb Branch Office, Dairy C*nt*r, tnasbur0, Vorment 03430 a M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: RIDGEWOOD ESTATES Conformance with zoning regulations as reviewed by this office. DATE: AUGUST 7, 19 4 DATA: Area zoned AR District, proposed uses allowed PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL 1. Section 5.304, Specific Standards: Parcel contains 57 acres - conforms Density proposed, 114 units - conforms 2. Section 5.305. Permitted Uses 100 townhouse units and 14 single-family units - conforms 3. Section 5.307, Planning Commission Approval Required Parcel to be served by two road openings 4. Section 11.00, Dimensional Requirements Waivers required by Planning Commission: a. Front yard requirement - 75' One complex is set -back 70' from edge of blacktop portion of road. b. Storage building - side yard required, 75' and rear yard required, 50'. Building is approximately 25' from property line. 5. Section 11.20 applies (minor streams) Recreation building is 70' and one single family lot has a minor stream running through it. 6. Section 11.35 applies if Myers Lane is a private road All 14 lots would require a waiver. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: AUGUST 6, 1974 Data on single family lots: Due to the fact that no structures are shown, the Planning Commission will be able to concern itself with the dimensional requirements (some units will require a waiver). Would suggest that the requirements of RI be applied for all 14 lots. 7. Section 12.00 Sub -section 4 - the proposed name of Myers Lane is in conflict with an existing street (Myers Court). The two proposed streets should be set off as a 60' R.O.W. (these could be deeded city streets in the future). ' ♦fit f �1 ' P �p• MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD A. SPOKES, CITY ATTORNEY , DATE: AUGUST 15, 1974 RE: RIDGEWOOD ESTATES PROPOSAL You have asked me to interpret criteria 12 and 13 under Section 12.002 of the Zoning Regulations. I. No. 12. Proof of economic capability that the develoner can fully complete on schedule, the proposed PUD or phases thereof. Since compliance with the 14 criteria is in lieu of the requirement that municpal services to the subject property be projected in a capital program, the same factors which would normally be considered in determining whether municipal services should be extended should also receive emphasis under the present procedure. I would think the City:s primary responsibility is to determine that the developer is financially capable of com- pleting all public improvements within a predetermined time period. Prior to the construction of,public improvements, the City should be assured that the developer can proceed with the construction of the residential dwelling units. Since municipal services are being expanded, I would interpret criteria 12 to require the developer to satisfy the City that the expanded facilities will be put to immediate use. This is particularly relevant if we are to commit any municipal funds for such things as paying the difference between the installation of an 8 inch sewer main and a 12 inch sewer main. I therefore would conclude that a conditional determination by the Council and Planning Commission that the 14 criteria will be met is appropriate. Prior to the commencement of public improvement construction or the issuance of zoning permits, the developer should furnish a formal commitment or other documentation satisfactory to the City Attorney, Council and Planning Commission showing that financing for the entire project is available. There is sufficient bonding authority contained in the Planning and Development Act, our Zoning Ordinance and our Sub- division Regulations to guarantee that all public improvements will be constructed and maintained at the developer's expense. Pursuant to 24 VSA Section 4416 the Planning Commission, under subdivision review, can require the posting of a performance bond in an amount to cover the full cost of all new streets within the development and required improvements on or in said streets. In addition the Planning Commission may require the bond to include the full cost of the maintenance of these streets and public r improvements for a period of two years after completion. "Public improvements" apparently includes streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, fire hydrants, shade trees, water, sewage and drainage facilities, and public utilities. See 24 VSA Section 4411. I feel the bonding authority contained in the Planning and Development Act is sufficient to cover streets, even though the developer does not propose to dedi- cate the streets to the City. Our Subdivision Regulations also permit the Planning Commission to require a performance bond to cover the full cost of new streets and the required improvements on or in said streets. Section 801. The performance bond shall run for two years from the date of approval of the final subdivision plan. There is also bonding authority securing the cost of all plantings the Planning Commission may require under site plan review. See Section 11.701 of our Zoning Regulations. I neglected to point out that the bonding authority con- tained in the Planning and Development Act permits the Planning Commission to approve a bond for a period of up to three years. The bond may with the consent of the owner be extended for an additional three-year term. In summary, the Planning Commission may require a bond in sufficient amounts to guarantee the construction of all public improvements, as defined above. Because of the stricter limi- tation in our Subdivision Regulations, I would recommend that the initial bond not exceed a term of two years. The bond, however, can be extended for an additional three-year term with consent of the owner. II. No. 13. Developmental timetable.' Since it is impossible to estimate the length of time it may take the developer to obtain Act 250 approval and adequate financing, I would recommend that approval of criteria 13 also be conditional. In the meantime, I think it would be appropriate to ask the developer when he anticipates completion of the public improvements. \gyp City of South Burlington SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 August 18, 1975 Mr. Frederick Blais 86 Suburban Square So. Burlington, Vt. 05401 Dear Mr. Blais: Be advised that the South Burlington Planning Commission approved the first phase of Ridgewood Estates on June 17, 1975. Approval is contingent upon the following: 1. review and approval of the landscaping plan by the Tree Planting Committee. 2. all buildings setbacks will be no less than 30 feet off the major internal arteries. 3. negotiations between the City and the developer regarding the stipulations outlined in preliminary approval will have been completed. 4. the necessary bonding will be posted to meet all the requirements of the City Manager. 5. all requirements will be adhered to regarding drainage. 6. if the legal interpretation from the City Attorney should be that the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to waive setbacks from streams in the Conservation District within a PUD, the developer will take the normal channel for a variance or he may modify his plan; if, however, the Attorney rules that the Planning Commission does have the right to waive the setbacks. This motion is to be considered as approving the setback as shown on all the plans dated May 30, 1975. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of Opinion #88 from Attorney Richard Spokes which deals with the C. O. District set -backs. (note paragraph 3) Very truly yours, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Richard Ward Zoning Administrator RW:gmy Enc. 0 Results Planning Commission Meeting of August 19, 1974 concerni,ig 14 criteria to be met by Ridgewood Estates Proposed Development Criteria #1 Accepted :Fred Blaise stipulates that no salt will be used on all paved areas. Criteria #2 Accepted based on letter from R. W. EMERICK dated August 6, 1974 stating that ". . . development will create no burden on the existing water facilities in the area." Criteria #3 Accepted based upon Mr. Flinn's Erosion Central Statement of August 7, 1974. Criteria #4 Accepted Criteria #5 Accepted based upon letter by Frederick H. Tuttle recommending that ". . . construction . . . will not cause an unreasonable burden." Criteria #6 Accepted based upon ". the question of Public -vs Krivate ownership of the interior roads --in light of the ity'Engineers' for the coming recommendations --will be determined at the time of the subdivision hearing, and the planning commission recommends that the city negotiates with the developer to install an 8 inch forced sewer pipe and a 12 inch-ravity pipe with the city paying the addi- tional cost to the developer over and above his expense of installing a 6 inch forced main and an 8 inch gravity main." Criteria #7 Accepted . . subject to the following stipulation provided by Mr. Blais. "Ridgewood Estates would be will- ing to allow access for the purpose of bike trails consis- tent with the proposed municipal bike trail system, to traverse the Ridgewood Estates property in a general north to south direction." 4 Criteria #8 Accepted that ditions for section Richard A. Spokes . Criteria #9 Accepted Criteria #10 .Accepted ". developer regarding Criteria #11 Accepted ". . . developer has satisfied the con- 8 as covered in the letter from . . dated August 12, 1974." acknowledging the stipulation by the the trail system." Criteria #12 Accepted ". with the understanding that the develop- er has agreed that the entire sewer connection (sewer line and pumping station) will be covered by a performance bond acceptable to the City Manager." Criteria #13 Accepted ". with the following provisional timetable: Phase 1 to be beuun in Fall of 1974 or Spring of 1975, depend- ing upon environmental hearings, financing, etc. and that the development will be completed in 3 to 5 years thereafter." Criteria #14 Accepted with . . . Statement of Development Intent (by Developer dated July 15, 197 ." Mrs. Maher: " I would like to sum up what we have done here." She than made the following statement: "The lanning Commission concludes that the developer of Ridgewood Estates has complied with the 14 criteria of Article 12.002-A. of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinances. We request that the City Council examine all of the relative motions, subsidiary motions, explanations and general discussion in order to fully understand the reasons for our con- clusions. "The Planning Commission hopes the City Council reconizes that on some of the 14 criteria, we will work in much greater depth with the developer, our City Manager and City Planner during sub- divisions hearings. The latter statement assumes that UAis development receives City Council approval and Environmental Board Approval." Mr. Levesque moved to adjorn and Mr. Wessel seconded the motion. Mrs. Maher recessed the meetion at 11:00 F.M. .i� M E M 0 R A N D U M ' To: South Burlington City Council and PlanninC Commission From: Fred Mitchell, City Planner Date: August 20, 1974 re: Statement concerning the amount of traffic that will impact on Swift and Dorset Streets. It is becominS apparent that as increased development takes place on South Dorset and Swift Streets, especially of a planned unit Development -Residential nature there will come a point in time when these existin- streets will have to be upgraded to meet the increased transportation demand and flow placed upon them. To adequately respond from a municipal point of view to the anticipated demands placed upon the system it is necessary to have an understandinV of the existing characteristics the roads and projection of transportation demands that are likely to impact on the system. Presently Swift Street averages 170 vehicles at its. peak hourly volume in the late afternoon. This was measured at the Dorset Street intersection. On an average daily traffic basis Shrift Street from Syoear to Dorset Streets averages approximately 400 vehicles. Dorset Street south of Kennedy Drive, at present, has an average of 314 vehicles per hour at its peak hourly volume. This also was measured at its intersection with Swift Street. Its average daily traffic volume is approximately 820 vehicles. In estimatin- future projection for traffic volumes it is necessary to evaluate several important transportation deter.^ninates. Initially, the South Burlington'Comprehensive Plan recommends that several roads be extended, as future demands warrant, through the south east quadrant. This has 0 2 .* been proposed to improve the access and circulation pattern. The extension of Swift Street, Van Sicklen and Allen roads will, in future years, cause an increase of traffic on Dorset Street., At present, demands do not warrant any extensions but in viewing the total impact on Dorset Street this recommendation of extensions can cause increased transportation. Another major determinate and one that is going to have short and long range implications is the land use adjacent to Dorset Street and residential densities allowed under the current zoning regulations. The existing land use pattern in this area is largely open fields with some agricultural activity and residential housing in isolated clusters and along the highway distributed very sparcely. The zoning regulations allow for two differing dwelling unit densities. As established, the vast majority of the land is in the (A-R) Agr4-cultural Rural Zoning districts. This allows for residential densities of one single family dwelling on'each parcel with a minimum of 10 acres land area. Using this density as a guide and estimating that approximately 1,600 acres of land could possibly have a direct impact on the local transportation system it is estimated that there could be an impact of approximately 320 automobiles (using two automobiles per dwellings unit). This figure is for the number of automobiles that could be generated by single family residences and does not include additional trips or the in- crease in the average daily traffic volume. Utilizing the 320 automobiles and existing traffic volume figures it is estimated that if the low density is developed on Dorset Street according to the zoning regulations the average daily traffic volume including various trips could increase to 1,200 approximately, with an average peak hourly volume in the late afternoon of 475 vehicles, based. soley on surrounding residential impacts and not considering the traffic passing through from Kennedy Drive and the city limits. However, the existing zoning regulation also allows for the development of residential units at a density of 2 units per acres and if the site is either served by municipal water and sewer or connected to it by a developer. Presently, there are 10 parcels of land that are 50 acres or more in size that have access to Dorset Street south of Kennedy Drive. If it is assumed that these existing parcels were developed at the higher density in accordance with the zoning regulations there could possibly be generated, based 3 soley on residential parking requirements, approximately 3,000 vehicles. This is a sizeable increase over the traffic possibly generated by the lower density. Includ- ing the existing traffic volume on Dorset and an estimate of trips generated, there could be an average daily volume of 5,100 automobiles not counting increased traffic moving through on Dorset Street. The peak hourly volume could possibly be estimated at 750 vehicles for both directions and higher if you include all traffic. As a point of comparison the situation has been examined with reference to the possibility of the entire area adjacent to Dorset Street being utilized at the higher residential 4anned unit development density. If this were assumed, the. total in automobiles could be.apnroximately 4,800. This added to the existing traffic voli- e and increased trips gener�,.ted could result in an average daily volume of 5,600 vehicles and an average peak hourly volume of 900 vehicles plus thru traffic. This discussion of amounts of traffic that could possibly influence the traffic volumes on Dorset and Swift Streets should be viewed as general gross projections based upon an estimation. No consideration was.given to various environ- mental factors such as capability of the soils to sustain development. It is important now to consider the present capability of the existing two streets. Both streets have a pavement width of 22 feet and as such can accomodate an hourly flow of approximately 600 automobiles per lane, or 1,200 for both lanes at peak hour traffic. Based upon these estimated capacities it is forseen that Swift Street will be able to handle the anticipated increase in peak hourly flow. Dorset Street, south of Kennedy Drive will be exceeding its maximum capacity if you include thru traffic and assume that the ad- jacent land is developed at the higher density. As the peak hour traffic volumes approach 750 vehicles the city should start to look seriously at upgrading Dorset Street and its intersection with Swift Street. A better understanding of this situation will be made once data currently being collected by the Regional Planning Commission for various transportation considerations in the city'is made available. Until such time the information contained in this report should be viewed as an attempt to give a r-eneral understandin- of increased transportation in response to more -intense land use. 20 e 'r r .R Lf �j10 dcr�°S dere traffic generated 3io by ` area —) y peak hour flow average daily !�2r�o3gmae traffic volume SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING C01CMISSION AUGUST 1974 ,J State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parke Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ROBERT B. WIUUMS, Secretary Montpelier, Vermont 05602 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS Box 132 Essex Jct., Vermont 658-3006 August 27, 1974 Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Dick: These comments concerning the proposed Ridgewood Estates at Swift and Dorset Streets are made following a site inspection and lengthy discussion with the developers. The site of 100 townhouse units is an open ridge of Vergennes and Nellis soils. Soils investigations reveal bedrock at + 7 feet. During our site visit of August 22, 1974, Bob Towne indicated no severe problem with respect to building on this site. The wooded stream valley adjacent to the Robenstein property appears to be undisturbed, thereby maintaining a green island between this project and the Dorset Street properties. The applicant indicated to me that 2.5 parking spaces have been allocated for each housing unit. This does not seem to be overly generous; however, excessive parking area would detract from the proposal. The proposed landscaping for the townhouse area appears to be adequate. In discussion with the landscape architect, white birch was substituted for grey birch. The proposed species and sizes are very good; however, a multi -year landscape guarantee should be specified for a project of this magnitude. It was indicated that utilities will be underground, thereby maintaining the aesthetics. A Water Resourdes Discharge Permit will be necessary for the storm sewer. Outdoor lighting shouldbe the minimum to maintain the safety and security of the e ara. _ The roads -err this project should be constructed to A-76 or city standards, whichever is more stringent. ( fv ✓-Lee- .cc. iC. � "4 V44t� The western'protion of the project involves open land as well as woods on Vergennes, Covington, and Livingston clays. The wooded island east of the proposed pond will be a magnificent buffer between the two phases of the development. It should be mentioned that the Soil Conservation Service is available to assist in the design and construction of the. pond. Mr. Richard Wara -2- August 27, 1974 It is my understanding that the location of Myers Lane has changed from that short on the plans of July 25, 1974. If during the planning and construction of this road it becomes advantageous to relocate the stream which flows out of Swift Estates, I can see no danger in doing so. This stream is not a significant natural resource, and channel relocation will have no lasting effects as long as good stream bank stabilization practices are followed. The small stand of elm which will be bisected by Myers Lane is not a major asset; however, due care should be exercised to prevent unnecessary damage to the stand. The major concern on this entire proposal involves the lots planned in the woods at the end of Myers Lane. The stand is principally mixed hardwood of pole and small sawlog size with an admixture of hemlock. The soil is Livingston wet clay which restricts root development. This area has been heavily grazed resulting in soil compaction, which is also detrimental to root growth and normal functions. The openings which will be created by the road and 5-7 houses will drastically reduce the stand's ability to withstand heavy winds. Also, the heavy soil which is present will accentuate the potential damage from overfill. No significant environmental loss will be realized if the area is destroyed• h wever, the applicant should be willing to accept the consequences of building in this area. Sincerely yours, Russ411 S. Rea, Environmental Advisor RSR/dem 1. i TO: CITY COUNCIL AND PLAiil'UNG COAT 113aION FROM: KAY NEUHERT RE: COUi;CIL A??ROVAL Or 14 POINTS ON RIDGG,JOOD LSrATES August 30, 1974 ,0OAE TH3'JG r3: 1. I beli(-vm the 14 points in the Zoning Ordinance arm to determine, the impact on the com;iunit.y at large of any new development corning under the purview of Sec. 12. Therefore, I feel that approval of the 14 points gives the Council the power to-iforce any requirements that we deem reasonable and legal providing we support such requirements T•rnth professional evidence and advice where it has an impact on: a. Health, safety, and welfare of present and future citizens b. Economic impacf, as related to any capital outlay by the City c. Relation of development to potential future development ( Seme Sec. 5.30 of Zoning Ordinance and State Planning and Development Act.) of 2. In a brief review/thm Ridgewood Estates By -Laws as submitt4d by the developer I find theln wanting as related to a,b.c, above. At some point control of the development will pass out of the hand of the developer to the Home Owner's Association. I realize that the by-laws are probably a standard condominium contract at this point and will require revision and review by attorney's for both sides (Mr. Spokes has not reviewed them yet) before final sub -division approval. Certain requirements can be made part of the 14 point approval by Council which will devolve updn the developer and his heirs and assigns forever through a separate contract which becomes part of any conveyance. Some recoiimendations culled from the P.C. deliberations and my own concerns on the following pages: a. No salt shall be used on the roads b. Lots in the N.W. corner of the development (to be identified) where extreme soil conditions and wetness exist, shall be reviewed by the PlanningCommission in regard to handling of surface water, drainage, etc. before a building permit is issued. c. Streets in the development will remain private and maintenance, snow removal, drainage, and evenutal resurfacing will be the rdsoonsiblity of the developer, his heirs and assigns. d. Public Access shall be permitted for pedestrian and/or bicycle trails which tie into a duly adopted City trail system the specifics of which are mutually agreeable. 2. not result ..."the slope of the availability of THE FOURTr ;i� POIATS in undue water or air polution." land and its effect on effluents; the streams for disposal of effluents." QUESTION: ,all surface drainage and storm drainage be channelled into the stream on the westerly and of the property? How close to the e�dsting stream bed will sewer line and roadway construction go where it parallels the stream? Will you culvert the stream where the road will cross in two places? ,VOTE: Russell Reay's letter of August 27, Page 2. "It is my understanding that the location of Myers Lane has changed from that shown on the plans of July 25, 1974. If during the planning and con- struction of this road it beeo'It- ,,Ivantageoun to relocate the stream which flows out of St•rlft Estates, I can see no danger in doing so. This stream is not a sifnificant natural resource, and channel relocation will have no lasting effects as long, as Food stream bank stabilization practises are followed." I have checked my intrepetation with :sir. Towne and we agree that the intent is that the strewn should be maintained even if it means relocation. The impoundment on Swift Estates flow directly into the stream, it takes natural run-off from slope, and pools to some extent in the N.W. sector before it goes under I-89 into another stream and then into the lake. I could movo to accent Article 1 if the developer agrees to culvert the stream where the road crosses in two points and if the intregrity and purpose of the stream is maintained for it's entire length either in its natural channel or by relocation where necessary and that good stream bank stabilization be practised. I'm not so sure that the "salt" provision is necessary, but the P.C. has requested it and the developer agrees. It can be part of a separate contract. 2. G.K. - water 3. ..."will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result." The lots ink the N.W. sector on severe soils already pool considerable water, both from the stream and drainage. It is my understanding that the developer plans to sell off these'lots separately for development by private contractors. The developer maintains that he has design control over the entire sub -division but it is conceivable that he would not be actively involved at the time these questionable lots are developed. I could move to accent Article 3 if these lots (to be designated) come under specific Planning Commission approval before permits are granted by placing them into a separate contract. 3• 4. ..."highway congestion or unsafe conditions" (See Planning Commissions votes of August 19 - Pages 5-8 re: sidewalks) QUESTION: Do the supercession of votes negate any recomiendation for sidewalks? Can we prove potential danger to children who m.*Ight walk or ride bicycles to the H.S. or H.S.? 'dould this walking or -riding along an inadequate- shoulder create danger for vehicular traffic because of the blind hills? Thera might be a wor;cnble comuroLise here if the public access to a pedestrian or bicycle trail within the development could be located to cut down as much as possible the necessity of using Dorset dtreet for this type of use. It would be less costly for the City to pick up its responsibility beyond the development with 1. Signs to reduce speed 2. Signs to warn of potential walkers and riders 3. Some system of signs or traffic light control for those who would cross in the Dorset Streat-Kannedy Drive area. The question of a sidewalk built by the City could be addressed later when congestion warrants it, or when Dorset :street is widened or resur- faced or when the proposed bicycle trail system is initiated and approved. 5. G.K. - Schools 6. Municipal and overnmental se-rvices as addressed by the Planning Com,>>ission on Pages 10 and 11 with regard to A. sewers and B. interior roads: A. The question of sewer pipe site has a direct impact on future development in the area. Mr. Szymanski has recommended 8 and 12 inch pipe. I don't believe we have statutes that prohibit the City requiring specific size pipes from a develop,,3r. We are setting engineer- ing conformance standards for all developer initiated sewers in the S.E. Quadrant. I would like a cost estimate to the City if we vote to accomodate the developer on the pipe differential, just for the record. I believe we can require the larger pipe fromthe developer, and in a telephone conversation .with iir. Spokes, he indicated that we could turn down --p6 unless the developer complies. B. Interior roads: QUESTION: 1. What are specifications in our subdivision regulations? 2. Do the regulations differentiate between private and public roads and to what extent? (See bottom of Page 2 and Page 3 of Spokes letter of August 12) I don't particularly see why the City should continue to accumulate roads for service and maintenance if we can avoid it. 4. A reason constantly put forth is that we get stuck with them even- tually anyway and while that has happened in the past because of poor controls, if we entered into contract with tht,� developer that ;could guarantee perpetual maintenance by his heirs:> and assigns, we would not get stuck, nor should we get stuck with drainage problems if the engineering requirements at time of sub -division hearing are adequately looked to. I am also personally in favor of the esthetics of not having wide streets and curbs in this type of development. I believe our sub -division regulations provide for streets adequate for fire -fighting, police protections and servicing of sewers and the developer shows a cul-de-sac on his plans. 7. O.K. with modified trail system that might be agreed to in relation to number 4. 8. Our Municipal Plan: (See Spokesletter of August 12)- bottom of page 1) I am satisfied that the development conforms if the questions I raise for number 1 are met. I would agree that the right to access to property superc-des the City's interest in a Consoryation Gone but that for other than access we should hold to proper protection based on the best teehinical advise we can get. Mr. Reay's report is apparently acceptable to the developer. The question of salt can be addressed in a special contract as can the drainage problems in the = lots inthe N.4. corner. The trail system is agreed to, and the question of trees in Mr. Reay's letter can best be addressed during sub -division hearings. 9. Housing - O.K. 10. Open space G.K. 11. Economy and efficiency of public facilities - O.K. - I believe we can control this through the City Engineer and the bonding provisions, the sub -division regulations and any stipulations we make in any of the other articles being considered. 12. Economic capability (See Spokes letter of August 15) QULSTIOIJ: At what point can proof of ownership of entire parcel be required? This would seem to me to be the basic test establishing economic capability, and without the entire parcel under the control of the developer there will be no development according to our 'Zoning Regulations i except for 1 on 10. It.'s a terrible waste of the city's time and energy to go all the way to granting of a permit if there is any risk that the developer may not have the entire parcel under his control. 13. Timetable - I'm confused by the sewer phasing (page 19 of P.C. findings) QUES Does the sewer phasing run concurrent with the development of the housing units or should the main sewer be on a separate timetable? The first units completed and sold must use the public sector of the sewer. I do realize that bonding gives us protection and perhaps that is enough. 14. O.K. LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 66 ST. PAUL STREET '✓! BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWING I AREA CODE 802 RICHARD A. SPOKES 863-2857 September 6, 1974 William J. Szymanski City Manager South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion No. 67 Ridgewood Estates - Subdivision Application Dear Bill: The Planning Commission has asked me several questions concerning their consideration of the Ridgewood Subdivision application. I have previously commented on the authority of the Planning Commission in Opinion Nos. 51 and 52, each dated March 12, 1974. Basically, these opinions indicate that the Planning Commission may waive or vary subdivision requirements if, in its judgment, the requirements are not essential in promoting the interests of public health, sa_ety and general welfare. Opinion No. 52 also indicates that the Planning Commission may require as a condition to approval of any plat that the land shown on such plat shall be of such a character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace. See 24 V.S.A. Section 4415 (3) . Unfortunately, our present subdivision regulations were designed solely for grid -type developments. Many of the . requirements are not applicable to cluster developments, and the Planning Commission undoubtedly will need to modify and vary some of the requirements to adjust to a cluster situation. Specifically, the Planning commission wanted to know if Article IV of the subdivision regulations apply to Planned Unit Development - Residential. I would have to answer in the affirmative but stress the Planning Commission's prerogative to vary the requirements as above indicated. Further, it is =,ortant to consider the PUD section of our zoning regulations in a proper prospective. As indicated by Article XII of the zoning regulations, the Planning Commission may modify zoning regulations simultaneously with approval of a planned unit develop::.cnt. There are certain specific standards the Planning Commissio- is bound by', and these are set forth in Section EWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -2- September 6, 1974 12.002 B of the zoning ordinance. I believe the Ridgewood proposal co:aplies with all of these specific standards. It is the intent of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and our zoninregulations to permit t.e planning Commission to vary lot sizes, frontage requirements, set -backs, and other restric-; lOns iilien considering duster -type developments. _-_Therefore, ;. tze�C0-_'fission has a great deal of discretion in approving MI .appropriate lot sizes, set -backs, etc., The Planning Commission specifically wanted to know what control it had -concerning dimensional requirements for lot sizes and also placement of buildings. As indicated above, I believe they nave a great deal of discretion, although it is ray opinion they should determine the minimum front yards rov- set-back ced requirements, etc., simultaneously with their app al of the PUD-R. If this is -done properly, the review procedure prior to the issuance of building permits for the 14 indivi- dual lots should not be necessary. Finally, the Planning, Commission questioned Section 408 of the subdivision regulations. I, unfortunately, have no precedent to fall back on in construing this language. I am not sure what the Town had in mind when it originally enacted the subdivision regulations and included the language, "and subject to the control of the Town under conditions approved by the Selectmen of the Town of South Burlington." One caution I would suggest is that the restrictions concerning the use of the open space should be set forth in all deeds from the developer to the individual unit owners. The City could protect itself in this regard by including such a require- ment in the proposed agreement between the developer and the City. I do note that the language of Section 408 permits the dedication of the park land or the reservation of the park land for the common use of all the property owners. I would suggest that the developer present specific plans for the open space and park land including whether it desires to dedicate the property or reserve it, and that the plan be approved by the !� Council. I think I have covered all the points requested of me by the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the urgency of their request did not give me ample time to do any indepth research. If I can offer the Planning Commission some 1 a SWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -2- September 6, 1974 friendly criticism, I would hope that in the future requests o-f t:.is nature could be broug.at to my attention earlier in the subdivision review process. Very truly ours,, Richard A. Spokes VMAMIFFM To: Planning Commission From: Fred Mitchell, City Planner re: DORSET STREET PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT Date: September 9, 1974 In approaching an understanding of unsafe conditions with respect to pedestrian travel from the proposed Ridgewood ESTATES to the corner of KENNrDY DRIVE along DORSET STREET several important considerations should be kept in prospective. (1) What is the pedestrian traffic now, (2) What is it likely to be in the future a) from Ridgewood ESTATES b) from other residential developments ( ) What would be the motivation for pedestrian movement. () Possibility of other uses (bicycle path) associated (5) What is automobile traffic now and in the future? Presently, there is pedestrian movement on DORSET STREET and, as such, unsafe condition exist because of the absence of sidewalks. The shoulder of the street is utilized as a walk- way. On two separate observations of the street it was noticed that there is pedestrian use of the road, but to a low inten- sity. With the addition of` Ridgewood Estates the potential for increased pedestrian use of the street will be present, as with any other residential development also. As a result there is the danger of unsafe conditions not only to the pedestrian but to the motorist as well. At this point in time it is difficult to estimate what the intensity of pedestrian use on the street will be. It is safe to assume that there will be an increase as development increas- es. Any increase in pedestrian movement will be a result of close proximity to the schools and their associated activities as well as the possible desire of some to go for a walk for what ever reason. Because of the proposed staging involved in the completion of Ridgewood Estates there will be an easing in potential pedestrian traffic in the next few years. Additionally, the auto traffic now and what it will be, not only with this development, but with others as well, is an important factor which must be included when speaking of the potential for unsafe conditions (please refer to my memo of August 20, 1974 concerning traffic volumes). The situation is further aggravated by the existence of the interstate which serves as a barrier to all traffic and Pedestrian movement in this area and which causes all through traffic to flow into the Dorset Street underpass. In approaching a solution to the problem several things should be kept in mind: 1) opportunity to provide for a pedestrian -bicycle - vehicle corridor 2) temporary and permanent solutions With the establishment of integrated bicycle and pedestrian trails in this part of the city there arises the need to effic ,cntly move them through the DORSET STREET underpass. Therefore, included in any permanent design should be the idea of a transportation corridor which will separate pedes- train and bicycle movement from that of vehicular traffic. This can easily be accomplished by providing for a separate flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic adjacent to vehicular flow, until such point as it fans out intoestablishedtrails. The alleviation of unsafe conditions could initially be accomplished by providing a defined temporary improvement to the road shoulder that will accomodate pedestrian and bicycle flows. In the future, as demands warrants, this could be upgraded to a permanent accomodation of this type of activity. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED MITCHELL, CITY PLANNER RE: RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1974 The basic ingredients of a planned residential develop- ment design should embody the principles established for an adequate placement of structures, livability space, recre?tion and open space, circulation patterns, parking and utility design that will result in a desired living enviornment. By skillful design all plan elements are advantageously related in an effi- cient and economical manner which relate to each other and to various off site influences as well. The 5,esult is the crea- tion of a "neighborhood environment" tho.t is desirable not only to the development but to the city as well. Additionally, the city has the responsibility to see that safe, efficient and harmonious relationships of land use are created and that inherent in anv development no hardships or conflicts with respect to utilization of land are created. With these general thoughts in mind I have reviewed the proposed plan and offer the following comments: 1) The density of 2 dwelling units to the acre, as pro- posed for the development, does not conflict with the existing, largely rural and low density surrounding land use. 2) The establishment of townhouse type units in conjunc- tion with single family large lot units creates a diversity of not only density of land use, but also intensity of use. 3) Because of various soil limitations for development the overall layout of the site plan with respect to dwelling units has been designed in such a way as to utilize the land in locations that will best sustain construction. The exception to this could possibly be the location of the lots surrounding the cul-de- sac. Additionally, the location of the townhouses on the ridge, allows for the possibility of varying the levels of construction resulting in different building heights. - 2- 4) The proposed traffic circulation system and result- ing design of streets will be mostly internal to development, thus reducing the desirability of motor- ists to "cut thru on the proposed Ridgewood Drive. 5) The proposed open space and recreational facilities are adequate for the development. One concern that I have would be the possible impact upon off site facilities such as baseball diamonds that the city currently maintains. A review of existing facilities and programs should be undertaken to determine at what point in time these should -be upgraded and im- proved to meet any new demands that may be placed on them by this or any other developments. 6) The steps outlined by the developer to protect the existing trees, natural topography and prevent soil erosion is a positive move to preserve these ameni- ties of the site. 7) The arrangement of parking for the townho»ses is pro- posed in such a way that the visual impact of the parking lots is reduced when one looks in from Swift or Dorset Streets. 8) The development will cause additional traffic genera- tion within the area, however the roads, with proper maintaince, have the design capacity to accomodate the anticipated increase in volumes. 9) With reference to the development conforming to the adopted comprehensive plan, I feel the developers have addressed themselves, in a positive manner, to the criteria established on pages 26 and 27 of the plan which address the City's goals for the southeast quadrant. I feel that the proposed development will result in an efficient use of land resulting in a smaller network of utilities and streets and that a desirable housing environment will result. With the compliance to the zoning and subdivision regulations, recommendations of the City Manager, City Council and Planning Commission I would recommend that the plan be given conceptual approval and with the compliance to other permits from other authorities as is necessary, the developer urged to submit de- tailed plans for Phase I development as early as possible. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED MITCHELL, CITY PLANNER RE: RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1971+ For your consideration, attached are the various stip- ulations and relevant discussions for stipulations that have been made by the Planning Commission and City Council concern- ing the 11+ criteria for PUD-review and subdivision hearings. The attached is in chronological order by meeting. -1- August 7. Joint Planning�Comm ission- Cit�ncil Meeting on„Ridaewood Estates Start of the review of Section 12.002 No Stipulation made recessed til August 12 August 12 Joint Meeting Mr. Spokes related that . . . if a road is to remain private there are certain protective devices that can be required, such as maintenance, up -grading, etc, which should meet City specifications." (P.2) no stipulations made Aufiust 1 Pl_.nn? nr Commiss or, Me tint, Subdivision hearing warned for Ridgewood Estates adjourned til August 27, 1974 since review.of 14 criteria PUD was not complete. Criteria #1 Accepted "with the stipulation that the builder and associa- tion will not use salt on all paved areas." (P.3) Criteria #6 Accepted based upon ". . . the question of Public vs private ownership of the interior roads--ih light of the City Engineers' for the coming recommendations --will be determined at the time of the subdivision hearing, and the planning commission recom- mendations --will be determined at the time of the subdivision hearing, and the planning commission recommends that the city negotiates with the developer to install an 8 inch forced sewer pipe and a 12 inch gravity pipe with the city paying the addi- tional cost to the developer over and above his expense of in- stalling a 6 inch forced main and an 8 inch -ravity main." (P.11) Criteria #7 Accepted . . . subject to the following stipulation provid- ed by Mr. Blais. "Ridgewood Estates would be willing to allow access for the purpose of bike trails consistent with the pro- posed municipal bike trail system, to traverse the Ridgewood Estates property in a general north to south direction." (P.13) Criteria #10 Accepted ". . . acknowledging the stipulation by the developer regarding the trail system." (P.16) IM Criteria #12 Accepted ". . . with the understanding that the developer has agreed that the entire sewer connection (sewer line and pumping station) will be covered by a performance bond accept- able to the City Manager." (P.18) Criteria #13 Accepted ". . . with the following provisional timetable: Phase 1 to be begun in Fall of 1974 or Spring of 1975, depend- ing upon environmental hearings, financing, etc. and that the development will be completed in 3 to 5 years thereafter. " (P.1.9) All other criteria were accepted. Mrs. Maher: "I would like to sum up what we have done here." She than made the followinU statement: "The Planning Commission concludes that the developer of Ridgewood Estates has complied with the 14 Criteria of Article 12.002-A, of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinances. We request that the City Council examine all of the relative motions, subsidiary motions, explanations and general discussion in order to fully understand the reasons for our con- clusions. (P.20) August 27. Plater ding Commission Meetinr Resumption of Ridgewood Estates Subdivision hearing, however time did not allow for review. Seembr City Council review of the 14 Criteria of PUD "Mrs. Neubert said she felt things that are really important should be agreed to in a private contract with the developer that certain convenants be carried with each sale. City Attorney Spokes said the City could protect itself with a separate agreement with the developer stating the conditions upon which the approval is given; that the Planning Commission had several stipulations; at the final approval of the total package these conditions would be brought up. He added that the By -Laws are not the appropriate document by which we pro- tect ourselves; they are an agreement between the private devel- oper and the owners. Asked by Mrs. Neubert at what point a decision is made on the covenant, Mr. Spokes said there should be a document in- corporating the conditions the Planning Commission and the Council required in the 14 points, and also additional conditions the _3- ) Planning Commission made concerning its subdivision approval. There is no approval if the 14 points are not met. Mr. Farrar made reference to the letter of intent to agree to the stipulations required by the Planning Commission, with Mr. Cimonetti adding that it is only a statement of their intent, not a binding document. Mr. Spokes agreed. that some binding agreement would have to be .formalized. Mr. Blass said this had been put into a letter, and they are agreeing at this meeting to enter into a formal agreement. Mrs. Newbert expressed fear that the By -Laws and Articles of Association could be changed by the owners any time they wished to do so. Mr. Spokes assured her a binding document will be drafted, subject to his approval and the approval of Council." (P.2) Criteria :#1 ". . . developer has complied with Section 12.002, A.l., with the additional stipulation that the road will be culverted wherever it crosses the stream; that it will cross the stream only twice; and that the stabilization process of the stream bed be maintained for drainage purposes." (P.2) Criteria #3 mention made of the stipulation that the building of the homes in any particular area would be reviewed by the City Engineer; however no action by Council or agreement by developer taken. (P.3) Criteria #13 Voted for approval 11. . . that the development plan under point 13 as stipulated by the developer at the rate not to exceed 30 units in 175, '76 and 177, and 24 units in 178, that these numbers be cumulative, and that if the county growth rate in the preceding year after 175 is less than 20. of the average growth rate of the community, the developer can apply to the Code Officer who can issue additional building permits such as to make the number equal to the 2% or county growth rate, which ever is larger." (P.6) "Mr. Cimonetti asked that the minutes show that acceptance of the motion was given by the developer." (P.7) Criteria #5 approved . on the basis of the developmental timetable . Meeting adjourned until September 11 (at the Sept 3 meeting Criteria #2 was accepted and #4 tabled until further information is presented. -4- "Mr. Blais said they had agreed to review the 14 lots with the City Engineer and he felt that Bill practices good engineering; that each house will be put where it is judged to be best, with water problems reviewed for each lot." (P.2) "Motion by Mr. Dinklage to get an opinion from the City Attorney . . . as to the control of dimensional requirements for both lot size and building placement that the Planning Commission has in the process of anproving a PUDR and also . his recommendation for establishing a review procedure prior to the issuance of building permits with regard to the 14 individual lots that exist in the Ridgewood Estates pro- posal." (P.3) "Mr. Blais . . . said the developers were willing to agree that the streets would have to be brought up to City standards if the Association should desire to have them become public streets." (P.3) Mr. Levesque moved that the P.C. approve the private roads, to take advantage of the ru7.e of aesthetics of road design and re- search through Urban Land Institute studies for a development of this type with the legal guarantees that the City Attorney has made known to the Commission under item 3 which is on page 2 of his memorandum dated August 12, 1974. (P.4) Mr. Poger then moved to amend Mr. Levesque's motion by t° If the City at some time desires the road to become a City road the road will be brought up to the standards existing at that time, substantiated by traffic standards or other data, to be done at a cost to the Home Owners Association. (Amendment voted for approval) Mr. Dinklage moved to amend Mr. Levesque's motion further with the stipulation that the developer will provide a 50 foot right- of-way on Myers Lane and a 60 foot ri. ht-of-way on Ridgewood Drive. (Amendment noted for approval Motion and Amendments was carried (taken from Mr. Spokes August 12 memo) 3. What t-rotection_can_the City ob Without reviewing the pros and cons of public vs. private street, the City may do the following: 1. Insist that the roads, even if they are to remain pri- vate, conform to all building specifications contained in our subdivision regulations, and further meet all other relevant City standards. 2. Enter into an agreement with the developer which would require the owners of the development to meet all relevant City specifications and standards before insisting that the road be accepted as a public street by the City. The consideration for this type of arrangement is approval of the subdivision, and I feel if the arre��went is properly drafted, it would be binding upon the owners in the development and their heirs and assigns. We have entered into similar agreements with other developers, althouth usually these pertain to such things as sidewalks. 3. If the street is to remain private, we shoud be assured that the owners of the development have the responsibility of maintaining the street, and that necessary funds are available for them to do so. Question of changing the name of Myers Lane was discussed, but not resolved. Septeember 10. Planner Commission -Ridgewood Estates cunt. _...,_.. Mr. Wessel (with reference to sidewalks) asked ". . they will be entering City property and would it be in the same zone that the sidewalk would be, westerly or easterly side of Dorset? He thought perhaps when the pipeline was dug for the sewer, it could be back filled with a rood base to be used as a sidewalk" (P.7) "Mr. Blais said he would be willing to pursue this sugges- tion with Mr. Szymanski." (P.7) Planning Commission reaffirmed that unsafe pedestrian and bicycle condition will exist when the proposed Ridgewood Estates development is completed. . ."and that an adequate solution . . . is contained in the last paragraph of the City Planners memo . . . dated September 9, 1974." City Council resumption of 14 Criteria to be yr�r et bar Ri4ggwood__Estates. "Mr. Blais then said they had agreeded to provide for said "walk- way" which would be similar to the one at Red Rocks going from the bridge to the Red Rocks access." "Mr. Blais said they were making the proposal that when the second access comes out on Dorset Street, just to the north of the Methodist Church property boundary, and when it crosses to the easterly side of Dorset Street, that that point join into the walkway from Kennedy Drive: in back filling, that a crushed stone or something suitable to the engineer will be placed to establish a walkway -bicycle way." (.4) -6- "Mr. Blais said the developers would amend their proposal to provide for a walk way from the school in a southerly direc- tion on Kennedy Drive, to provide a similar walkway from the crossing of the sewer easement in a southerly direction oppo- site Ridgewood Drive, medium and design to be coordinated with the City Engineer." (P.4) Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council find that the revised plan of the developers, as amended, is in conformance with Section 12.002 A.4." (approved) (P.5) "The developer is generally in agreement to allow access for a pedestrian walkway in a north -south direction, based upon the proposed City walking and bicycling path when it comes up." (P.6) "Mr. Farrar asked if the developer is stipulating that these (recreational facilities, the pool and tennis court) will all be done by the completion of the development?" "Mr. Blais said he was." (P.6) "Mrs. Neubert said she would like to see a copy of the agree- ment with the purchasers. Mr. Blais said this would (be) summed up by Attorney Blum and Attorney Spokes to the satisfaction of the Council: also there would be a side agreement with the City on the points of specific Stipulations. "Mr. Blais then they were stipulating that they do intend to put in what is on the map by the completion of the development. Mr. Farrar moved that, with the stipulation, the Council finds that the developer has complied with Section 12.002 A. 10 (Approved) (P.6) Concern over appropriate Language to cover the adequacy of main- tenance of private streets to insure the health and safety of the people in the development. (no action taken) (P-7) Mr. Merrill moved that the Council accept Sections 12.002 A.12 proof of economic capability, that the developer has conformed with the followin- stipulations: that the performance bond cover sewer, drainage, water, streets, and sidewalks! and that a clear title to the ownership of the land be shown, before a building permit will be issued. (Approved) (P.9) Also approved Criteria ##7, 89 97 11, 14 and 6. "Mr. Farrar moved that upon receipt of the written documents cover- ing the various stipulations applied by both the Council and the Planning Commission, that the Council has determined that the de= veloper is in compliance with Section 12.002 A. of the Zoning Ordinance, PUD ievelopment." (Approved) (P.9) �trr Department Mrab carters DORSET STREET OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER 863-6455 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. April 10, 197' Mr. Sidney Poger Chairman South Burlington Planning commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05/401 Dear Mr. Poger, Un Tuesday April 10,1979 plans were reviewed by this office on phase 3 of the Ridgewood development. At this time I see no reason with the lay out reviewed why the fire department should not be able to give proper protection. Again I wish it to be known that with the city growing the fire department must be upgraded if we are to give proper fire protection. If there are any questions please fell free to call me at 86.3-6455. Sincerel. ?=0isl A. Goddc: e , r. C])ief September 2, 1974 ATTENTION MARY BARBARA MAHER Re: AMENDMENTS TO AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE ASSESSORS' OFFICE, 1175 WILLISTON ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT ON MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1974. The following pages referred to regarding statements and their amend- ments are taken from said minutes. *DOUBLE PARENTHESES HEREBY REPRESENT ANY WORD OR PHRASE WHICiTHE COM- MISSION REQUESTED AND/OR VOTED TO ADD TO AN EXISTING PHRASE. ##UNDERLINED WORDS OR PHRASES HEREBY REPRESENT THOSE WHICH THE COMMIS- SION REQUESTED AND/OR VOTED TO DELETE. A. The following pages represent amendments to the minutes above refer- red to as amended at the South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting held at the City Clerk's Office, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 27, 1974. I AMENDMENT #1: Page 6; middle paragraph; statement by Mrs. Maher: "To this Mrs. Maher added, 'We cannot force the developer # to build sidewalks"'(("outside the limits of his development")). II AMENDMENT #2: Page 10; following reading of GENERAL STANDARD A. - 6: "Mrs. Maher noted, 'I think the key word here is - unreasonable -. ((Mr. Blais))* I think any housing is going to cause a burden because people need services', to which Mr. Blais## commented that the highest social ((Mrs. Mahe* use of land is housing." (("The South Burlington Master Comprehen- sive Plan"))* I I I AMENDMENT ,Y 3 Page 14; paragraph following reading of GENERAL STANDARD A. - 9: "...Mrs. Maher added, 'There has been discussion of this in the past two meetings.' She continued, 'There is a drastic housing shortage in this part of the state. There are few low-income housing areas. If you increase the number of houses available, hopefully there will be a filtering process', ad- ding that she knew of no one who would either want or build low-income housing in South Burlington and that she herself** would not welcome it." "no developers at the resent time who were willing to construct low-cost housing,, . C -2- IV AMENDMENT !�4: Page 14; following Motion #9 made by Mr. Dinklage; statement by Mr. Poger: "Mr. Poger pointed out that 'We are not middle -to -upper class so much that we can avoid considering all types of housin '..."#yam "We are not a community which can hope for low-cost housing through a filtering process. Although I do not know how we can obtain it, we must actively seek to provide our share of low-cost housing in South Burlington")).* V AMENDMENT #5: Page 14; second line from bottom; statement by Mrs. Maher: "Mrs. Maher continued, 'There are two issues under consideration here. The first is open housing** (("open spaces"))* and the second is roadways'." VI AMENDMENT #6: Page 7; second paragraph; statement by Mr. Levesque: "Mr. Levesque noted that 'The City is really_,goint to benefit. Six more developments could be placed out there since the total area amounts to 359 acres'."* "The City is going to benefit in reference to the capacity of the sewer as proposed by the developer. The 8-inch main will serve 2,000 people. That is the equivalent of 359 acres or six developments of this magni- tude; therefore, future costs for development of sewers will be alleviated by the City")).* VII AMENDMENT #7: Page 6; fourth paragraph; statement by Mr. Dinklage: "Mr. Dinklage noted that as the Commission is requiring the developer to provide the capital for a number of services located within the development - naming as an example a filling station** (("pumping station"))* - it would be unfair** "fair"))* to require"the developer, at his own expense, to provide sidewalks as well. B. Motion was then made by Mr. Poger and seconded by Mr. Dinklage to approve the minutes of the August 19, 1974 meeting as amended. Motion was passed unanimously. REiQEIVED OF �� 81974 DIST-2ICT 11 (77"1"TOSTO MANAI&ER'S OFFICE CITY So, BURLINGTON P': C.B.C. realty and Develops -lent, Inc. Preliminary Findings of 36 Suburban >quare Fact and Conclusions of South Purlii tin, Veniont Law Application #4C-,1G1 Set forth below are the Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 1+Law on an application filed by C.7i.C. ?ealty ani Development, Incorporated, 36 Suburban Square, South 3urlin�ton, Vermont. The application is for a Land Use R Permit for 100 townhones and 14 individual lots in cluster concept located on 57 acres at Dorset and Swift Streets in South ';urlington, Vermont. The specifi ':cations for the project are contained in the application filed September 27, 1974 includi.n3 the follor;;ing attachments: A --Letter of September 20, 1974 to Mr. Blais from Mr. [lard approving the subdivision; B--July 15, 1974, Statement of Development Intent; C--Letter of August 6, 1974 to Mr. Blais from Champlain Water District regarding water supply; ')--Erosion Control; E--Letter of August 15, 1974 to Mr. Szymanski from Frederick Tuttle concerning impact on school system; F--Community Econoriic Impact Statement; G--Letter of August 5, 1974 from Fire Department; TI--Legal Opinion from. City Attorney; I --City of South Burling- ton conditions, SepteTa,.er 19, 1974; J--Letter of September 24, 1974 from "Ir. Szymanski regarding water and sewer systems. Additional information submitted as exhibits is as follows: 2--Letter of October 1, 1974 to Mr. Blais from ;Mr. Syzmanski regarding airport parkway sewer plant capacity; 3--Letter of September 26, 1974 to Mr. Blais from B.F. Brault regarding electric service; ''6--Letter of October. 9, 1974 to Rid;ewood Estates from Rist-Frost, Associates regarding sewerage facilities for the development; 8--Letter of October 14, 1974 to Mr. McNamara from Frederick Tuttle regarding bus service for the development; 9--Letter of September 3, 19711 from the Fire Department clarifying letter of +August 5, 1974; 10--Revision to City Economic Impact; 12--Utilities plan revised I10ctober 23, 1974. The District Corunission held a hearing; on its own motion on October 23, 1974 with the following parties present: The Applicant, the City of South Bur- lington, the South 3urlinpton Planning Commission, Adjoining Landowner William Robenstein, and the Agency of Environmental Conservation. Eased on the record, the Commission makes the following preliminary findings of fact. These f_indin;s of fact are based on the 10 criteria set forth in §6086(a) of Title 10. „1) The proposed development and subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution, provided that the applicant receives certification that the proposed development and subdivision conforms to the Department of ITealth Subdivision Regulations. a. The storm drain syste-a for the proposedi development and subdivision will discharge into two small brooks. Catch basins in the storm drain system have been designed to provide for control of sediment and floating mater- ials. "either the applicant or the association will use salt on any of the paved areas which it controls, as stipulated in the City of South Burlington Condition "umber 1. The applicant will be required to obtain o-, the Department of Water. Resources. a dischar ge perriit fr b. Sewage disposal for the proposed ('evelopnent and subdivision will be provided by connection to the South urlington municipal system. e. The anticipated sewar,e flows are wit?iin the capacity of the South Purling - ton sewer plant n ` - 2-� t: i d. The final design for the connection onto the >iunicipal seder system will be in accordance with City specifications. The final plans must be sub- mitted to and approved by the Agency of Environmental Conservation. e. The construction of the connections to the municipal water and sewer lines must be completed p prior to construction of the buildings. 2) The proposed development and subdivision does have sufficient water avail" able for the reasonable foreseeable needs of the development and will not cause an unreasonable burden on the existing water supply. a. Water for the proposed developriont and subdivision will be provided by connection onto the City of South 'lurlington water system. k, b. The Champlain rater District has stated that there will be sufficient water available for the proposed development and subdivision. ,j c. The final design plans for connection onto the municipal water will need to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Health. 3) The proposed development and subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. k a. The applicant will follow title detailed measures for control of soil erosion durin; construction subi:�ittec as attachment D. 4) The proposed development and subdivision will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways, waten,7ays, railways, airports and airways, and other means of transpor- tation existing or proposed. a. Streets within the proposed devel.opr.;ent and subdivision will be construct- ed to City standards except curbs and sidewalks will not be provided. b. There were extensive discussions at the local level concerning the con- struction or a sidewall, along Dorset Street. Linder Condition Number 2 agreed upon With the City of South Burlington, the developer will provide a ;ravel walkway along Dorset Street frori Ridgewood Drive to Kennedy Drive. c. A footpath tirougii the development and adjoining property instead of the proposed x7all way might be more in keeping .Ath the rural nature of the area. The applicant will check into this possibility. S) The proposed levelopLicnt and subdivision .;ill not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the municipality to provide educational services. a. Tie school directors of the Sout'-i 7urlin.;toil School District approved the recorulendation of tie Su,)eriutendent of Sclkools that the construction Of t'1e ::id3ewooeI aad 'i"ie`iurst DCVelopr._e;:,Ls N7 i 11 not cause an unreason- able burd?un oil thil a:,ility of tl:e iunicIpality to provide educational services. 6) The proposed uovelopr.,cnt qn subdivision 4,11 not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of t''ic local �;overnm��; t: to provide Municipal or ^overnnental services. a. The a?)nlicant has oubmitt,„' an econor)ic irn.pr ct otater.,ent to the City of South BurliugtOn.. "via with t'ie ^ost conservative of all figures, there is still a postive r_as;; 'flow to the Cj.t:y as a result of the proposed developnent and subdivisions. b. The Fire C'tief as reviewed the plans and found that the proposed devel- opment an.0 sub ivis�on would create little or no burden on the South Burlin.,ton Fire Department. 7) The proposed development a -ad subdivision will not Have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. a. The majority of the site is op en and will require substantial landscaping. The applicant will landscape accordia& to the plan subnitted with the application. The applicant and the association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping; and preserving the character of the landscaping. b. The applicant will retain the flexibility of siting the lots and houses so as to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. c. The only signs for the proposed development and subdivision will be standard street signs. d. All utilities within the proposed developnent and subdivision will be installed under -round. i� e. Lighting within the proposed development and subdivision will be at a low level. -he roadside lighting ;gas been reduced as shown on the plan revised October 28, 1974. 8) The proposed development and subdivision. is in conformance with a duly 1: adopted capability and development plan. a. The applicant has reached an a-reenent wit`i the City of South Burlington as to the rate at which units within the proposed development and sub- division will be constructed. b. Although there is excellent agricultural soil within the site of the proposed development and subdivision, there is not enough of the soil to be of high value for commercial a;-riculture. i! c. All- buildings within the proposed development and subdivision will be insulated to minimum standards to conserve energy. Insulating glass will be utilized. d. Sewage and water facilities within the proposed development and subdivision will be constructed to City standards and token over by the City. e. The applicant has received letters from the necessary utilities stating that there will be adequate facilities and services available for the proposed developnent and subdivision. 9) The proposed development and subdivision is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan. n -4- a. The attorney for the City of South Burlington has issued an opinion that the proposed development and subdivision is in conformance with ij the local plan. b. There is no duly adopted re"ional plan with which the proposed devel- opment and subdivision must conform. CO;?CLUSIONS OF I.AW The development of 100 townhomes and 14-lot subdivision as set forth in the application, attachments A-J, and exhibits 2,3,6,8,9,10, and 12 has been determined by the District 4 Environmental Commission to satisfy criteria 2,3,4 ' 5,6,7,3,9, and 10 pursuant to 10 VSA, Chapter 151, 96936(a). The Commission reserves judgement with respect to criterion 1 pendin; issuance of a Certifica tion of Compliance under the Vernont Department of health Subdivision Regulations. That Certification requires review of the final design of the connection onto the municipal spiyer systen and the final design of connection to the municipal water system. I Set forth below are the preliminary conditions which shall be made a part of any permit issued. 1. The Cor_mlission ilaintains continuin jurisdiction during the lifetime of the permit and May periodically require that the permittee file a statement that the project is being completed accordin- to the terms of the pen -,it. 2. The project area for this development is that land ;_,'entified in i the plans ;t '�;,litLe:1 ;a'_t`�. t'zc a,�plicatio,l. ''o portion of the project area laay '>e used for any ot'ier purpose cithout the prior approval of the Co-maission. 3. The applicant anal its successor, the Homeoc,mer's Association shall maintain the landscaping, preserving its character, for the duration of the per -rift. 4. All buildin-s in the proposed development and subdivision shall be insulated to the minimun standards as shown on the typical detail submitted with the application.. Other conditions relative to criterion 1 may he attached as a result of review of the Agency of Enviroruiental Conunission under the :>ubdivision Regulations. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 6th day of November, 1974. For the District #4 Environmental Commission R E C E I V E D Curtis ?1. Carter Environmental Coordinator NOV 81974 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY SO. BURLINGTON Michael Flaherty, Chairman South Burlington City Council South Burlington, VwTrrnt July 249 1974 Dear Mike, Persuant to the Ridgewood Estates presentation reference to Article XII section 12.002 A, our consultants have completed the following studies as applicable to the 14 points. Point 1 -Engineers and planners will address the points of water polution and the effects of the development on the exist- ing drainage ways and related streams. Point 2-Engineering criteria endorssed by Champlain hater District will be present as to water source. Point 3-Engineers and Planners will present engineering methods related to the control of erosion. Point h-Highway present use and capability is being determined and standard engineering computations will be used to demonstrate the impact on highways. This report will be approved by City Engineer. Point 5-Presentation of the impact on schools has been made and comment from School District is forthcoming Point 6-Projections as to the impact on all municipal services will be presented with economic consequences demonstrated. Point 7-The plan of the development has been requested to be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee. In addition conformity to Master Plan will be demonstrated and planners will qualify their land utilization approach. Point 8-Legal counsel for the City of South Burlington should monitor this point and proceedures of all hearings. Point 9- Regional Planning Data and letters from Housing experts will be presented to demonstrate housing needs. Planning Commission to date has not completed any such study and therefore has not made a determination. Point 10-This point will be addressed by Planners plus the lawyers for Ridgewood Estates shall demonstrate the covenants per- tinent to control, maintenance and the guarantee of open space. Point 11-Engineers with city Engineer review and approvals will support this point. Point 12-Correspondence from reliabel lending institution shall be submitted. Point 13-Time table by types and location will be presented. Point 14- Objectives will be submitted in written fora If additional study or research is requested, I'd apprecialte learning of them as soon as possible to avoid any delay as well as to insure their completion in depth by pertinent profdssionals. Respectfully submitted, Frederick G, Blais for Ridgewood Estates State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ROBERT B. WILLIAMS, Secretary Montpelier, Vermont 05602 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS Box 132 Essex Jct., Vermont 658-3006 August 27, 1974 Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Dick: These comments concerning the proposed Ridgewood Estates at Swift and Dorset Streets are made following a site inspection and lengthy discussion with the developers. The site of 100 townhouse units is an open ridge of Vergennes and Nellis soils. Soils investigations reveal bedrock at + 7 feet. During our site visit of August 22, 1974, Bob Towne indicated no severe problem with respect to building on this site. The wooded stream valley adjacent to the Robenstein property appears to be undisturbed, thereby maintaining a green island between this project and the Dorset Street properties. The applicant indicated to me that 2.5 parking spaces have been allocated for each housing unit. This does not seem to be overly generous; however, excessive parking area would detract from the proposal. The proposed landscaping for the townhouse area appears to be adequate. In discussion with the landscape architect, white birch was substituted for grey birch. The proposed species and sizes are very good; however, a multi -year landscape guarantee should be specified for a project of this magnitude. It was indicated that utilities will be underground, thereby maintaining the aesthetics. A Water Resources Discharge Permit will be necessary for the storm sewer. Outdoor lighting should be the minimum to maintain the safety and security of the area. The roads in this project should be constructed to A-76 or city standards, whichever is more stringent. The western protion of the project involves open land as well as woods on Vergennes, Covington, and Livingston clays. The wooded island east of the proposed pond will be a magnificent buffer between the two phases of the development. It should be mentioned that the Soil Conservation Service is available to assist in the design and construction of the pond. Mr. Richard Ward -2- August 27, 1974 It is my understanding that the location of Myers Lane has changed from that shown on the plans of July 25, 1974. If during the planning and construction of this road it becomes advantageous to relocate the stream which flows out of Swift Estates, I can see no danger in doing so. This stream is not a significant natural resource, and channel relocation will have no lasting effects as long as good stream bank stabilization practices are followed. The small stand of elm which will be bisected by Myers Lane is not a major asset; however, due care should be exercised to prevent unnecessary damage to the stand. The major concern on this entire proposal involves the lots planned in the woods at the end of Myers Lane. The stand is principally mixed hardwood of pole and small sawlog size with an admixture of hemlock. The soil is Livingston wet clay which restricts root development. This area has been heavily grazed resulting in soil compaction, which is also detrimental to root growth and normal functions. The openings which will be created by the road and 5-7 houses will drastically reduce the stand's ability to withstand heavy winds. Also, the heavy soil which is present will accentuate the potential damage from overfill. No significant environmental loss will be realized if the area is destroyed; however, the applicant should be willing to accept the consequences of building in this area. Sincerely yours, Russ ll S. Rea Environmental Advisor RSR/dem March 17, 1978 Wright & Morrissey, Inc. Mr. Al Farrington 346 Shelburne Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Engineering inspection fee, Ridgewood Estates Dear Mr. Farrington: Enclosed please find a revised inspection fee. This is the result of a recent discussion with Mr. Fred Blais. This office has accepted his total construction cost which excludes the private roads. It is my understanding that Wright & Morrissey is liable for this. We would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter, as you are aware this is long overdue. Thank you for your co-operation. Very truly, Richard ware Zoning AdministrEtive Officer RW/mcg 1 Encl cc: Mr. Fred Blais Ridgewood Estates Speed Message To City of South Burlington III Attention: Mr. Richard Ward From Ridgewood Estates Development Fred Blais Subject City charges for eng . n r; ig i n! est i nn Date Jan 31, 1977 _19 Dear Dick As a follow up of your billing for engineering inspection fees to the City of So Burlington for above project, be advised that your estimate is trio all inclusive of work that has no pertinance to the city's interest - Calculations from the Contractors submitted work sheet to FHA show that a cost of $137,201 00 constitutes the sewer* lift station; force main; water lines and - drainage system. On this basis please recalculate your charges and forward invoice to Wright anti Morrissey Inc., Attention to Al Farrington WilsonJones 676 DRAYLINE FORM M 900 2-PART 0 1976 • PRINTED W U.SA INVOICE CITY v c SOI?T?i $T�LI3,f0i0ItiT 1175 1=15T= ROAD SOUTH 0541 SOLD TO • _', T l* & v `.tt. Yr. Al "Farrington 3'cb lihelburne 'Road 1urlington,Vermont 05401 SHIPPED TO NO. / DATE"'" YOUR ORDER NO. OUR ORDER NO. SALESMAN TERMS F.O.B. DATE SHIPPED SHIPPED VIA QUANTITY ORDERED QUANTITY SHIPPED STOCK NUMBER/DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT AMOUNT �nrineering inspection fee(lidgewood --states) 7_01, ^es se•,Ter,lift station, force rn.in,wate 1;nee,drainare s.rstem and--, 0FOU's Glo ling FORM 44-411 3-PARTS /� WILSON JONES COMPANY • n 1961 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. TRIPLICATE 574 ■ bpeed hriessage bject City ebargeg fer Pnginpering From Ridrnwnmd Estates nevelogipprt Fred Blais Date Jan 31, 1977 19 As a follow up of your billing fnr engineering irspection fees to the City —of So. Burlington f 4s too Ailinclusive of work that has no nertinanre to the citT_s interest Calculations from the Contractors submitted work sheet to Fi1A sbow that a cost of $137,201 00 constitutes the sewer: lift station' farce main- water lines end drainage system. elk S �G�, 0.0 0 .-2l��� �Oa /� �• On this basis please recalculate Your charges and Bard invoice to Nr-ight and Morrissey Inc.. Attention to Al Farrington_ 3 ��/, I+-*a'�d'- Si Signed— VilsonJones -INE Fp M 4 -W 2-PARr i 1BJB • PRINTED W U.&A °.pril 1, 1977 Ridgewood ..states ,.evelopment r. " Mred x-aais 86 St. Paul Otreet ?urlin ton, VT 05401 fear ,red: engineering inspection zee due the City of :youth l'urlin«ton in the amount of one thousand one hundred and thirty-six (19136) dollars has been .for,,Tarddd to 1'�r. Al 'arrington `,'right & . orrissey, Inc. this char-e is based on a nev,1 development cost of r'227,201. `phis amount 4410ludes 4,500 feet of private road whir:. was calculated by the City Lngineer. Attached to this letter is a copy of the invoice, i" you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly, Richard " ard. Coning Adminis r%tive Officer T : ;'/ j Enclosure JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A, SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 September 6, 1974 William J. Szymanski City Manager South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion No. 67 Ridgewood Estates - Subdivision Application Dear Bill: AREA CODE 802 863-2857 The Planning Commission has asked me several questions concerning their consideration of the Ridgewood Subdivision application. I have previously commented on the authority of the Planning Commission in Opinion Nos. 51 and 52, each. dated March 12, 1974. Basically, these opinions indicate that the Planning Commission may waive or vary subdivision requirements if, in its judgment, the requirements are not essential in promoting the interests of public health, safety and general welfare. Opinion No. 52 also indicates that the Planning Commission may require as a condition to approval of any plat that the land shown on such plat shall be of such a character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace. See 24 V.S.A. Section 4415 (3) . Unfortunately, our present subdivision regulations were designed solely for grid -type developments. Many of the requirements are not applicable to cluster developments, and the Planning Commission undoubtedly will need to modify and vary.some of the requirements to adjust to a cluster situation. i Specifically, the Planning Commission wanted to know if Article IV of the subdivision regulations apply to Planned Unit Development - Residential. I would have to answer in the affirmative but stress the Planning Commission's prerogative to vary the requirements as above indicated. Further, it is important to consider the PUD section of our zoning regulations in a proper prospective. As indicated by Article XII of the zoning regulations, the Planning Commission may modify zoning regulations simultaneously with approval of a planned unit development. There are certain specific standards the Planning Commission is.bound by, and these are set forth in Section EWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -2- September 6, 1974 12.002 B of the zoning ordinance. I believe the Ridgewood proposal complies with all of these specific standards. It is the intent of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and our zoning regulations to permit the Planning Commission to vary lot sizes, frontage requirements, set -backs, and other restric- tions when considering cluster -type developments. Therefore, the Commission has a great deal of discretion in approving appropriate lot sizes, set -backs, etc. The Planning Commission specifically wanted to know what control it had concerning dimensional requirements for lot sizes and also placement of buildings. As indicated above, I believe they have a great deal of discretion, although it is my opinion they should determine the minimum front yards set -back requirements, etc., simultaneously with their approv- al of the PUD-R. If this is done properly, the review procedure prior to the issuance of building permits for the 14 indivi- dual lots should not be necessary. Finally, the Planning Commission questioned Section 408 of the subdivision regulations. I, unfortunately, have no precedent to fall back on in construing this language. I am not sure what the Town had in mind when it originally enacted the subdivision regulations and included the language, "and subject to the control of the Town under conditions approved by the Selectmen of the Town of South Burlington." One caution I would suggest is that the restrictions concerning the use of the open space should be set forth in all deeds from the developer to the individual unit owners. The City could protect itself in this regard by including such a require- ment in the proposed agreement between the developer and the City. I do note that the language of Section 408 permits the dedication of the park land or the reservation of the park land for the common use of all the property owners. I would suggest that the developer present specific plans for the open space and park land including whether it desires to dedicate the property or reserve it, and that the plan be approved by the Council. I think I have covered all the points requested of me by the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the urgency of their request did not give me ample time to do any indepth research. If I can offer the Planning Commission some `i �I l EWING & SPOKES William J. Szymanski -2- September 6, 1974 friendly criticism, I would hope that in the future requests of this nature could be brought to my attention earlier in the subdivision review process. Very truly yours,? v • Richard A. Spokes s_ i June 27, 1977 DISCHARGE PERMIT LEGAL NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of 10 V.S.A., Section 1263 that the State of Vermont, Agency of Environmental Conservation, Department of Water Resources proposes to issue a Discharge Permit to Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. of South Burlington, Vermont for the discharge of storm drainage into an unnamed tributary to Potash Brook, a tributary of Lake Champlain in South Burlington, Vermont until July 1, 1982. Receiving Expiration Name Volume Nature Location Stream Date Ridgewood Unspecified Storm So. Burlington Unnamed trib. 7-1-82 Estates Drainage Potash Brook Development, trib. of Lake �� Champlain Written notice of objection may be filed with the Department of Water Resources, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. All objections filed within the thirty (30) day period will be considered by the Department. Martin L.Johnson, Secretary Agency of Environmental Conservation City of South Burlington Zoning permit for land development Pursuant to provisions set forth in Title 24, Chapter 117 Section 4443 subsection (1) and Section 14.35 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations this permit is hereby issued on this ___2day of September 19 6 to C B C Development Corp. Mr. Fred Blais South urlington,W . _ 0 1?nd development of a parcel of land located on Dorset and Swift Streets South Burlin ton vt. in accordance with a subdivision application approved by the South Burlington Planning Commission on 18 th _4u�ust.1975 , Ridgewood Estates Phase 1 This permit is subject to appeal within fifteen 15 days from the date of issuance in accordance with Section 4443 subsection (3). Title 24 Chapter 117. Administrative Officer City of South Burlington This permit allows for site improvements only it does not permit the construction or alteration of any structures. Permit -is subject to conditions and bond requirements set forth by the City of South Burlington. ACKNOWUI DGN NT OF NOTICE The City of South Burlington hereby acknowledges receipt of notice oR a hearing before the District Commission ;�1 set on Octaber. 17, 1974, at 1: 110 p.m. at the Regional Planning Office, Essex Junction, Vermont, which hearing is on the ayrAi.ca tion of C. B.C. Realty and De.%relopment Corp. or a State !,and Vse permit to develop a tract at Dorset and Swift Streets in South Burlington, and waives any irregularities which may exist pursuant to the notice requirements of 10 V.S.A. 6085 (b) . DATED AT, South Btml ngton V6rinrant., this day of October., 1974. C:LTY C& SOUTH BURLIM ION BY: DIST::,ICT !F CO"^'ISSIO-7 C.B.C. ',.realty and Development, Inc. "6 Su',„urban (ivare South ^urlii..gto-a, Ven-aont Application 7ff4C-,1G1 Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Set forth below are the Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of i±Law on an application filed by C.T.C. Realty an] Develo-;pment, Incorporated, V5 Suburban Square, South 7,urlin3ton, Vermont. The application is for a Land Use Permit for 100 tow hones and 14 individual lots in cluster concept located on ;57 acres at Dorset and Swift Streets in South 'Iurlington, Vermont. The specifi t"cations for the project are contained in tho application filed September 27, 1974 including the folloi,.;ing attachments: A --Letter of September 20, 1974 to Mr. :' Blais from Mr. Ward ai provin;; t1le subdivision, B--July 15, 1974, Statement of Development Intent; C--Letter of August 6, 1974 to Mr. rlais from Champlain `Water District regarding water supply; ')--Erosion Control; E--Letter of August 15, 1974 to Mr. Szymanski from Fredericks Tuttle concerning impact on school system; F--Comnunity Economic Impact Statement; G--Letter of August 5, 1974 from Fire Department; Il--Lec al Opinion froTq City Attorney; I --City of South Burling- ton conditions, September 19, 1974; J--Letter of September 24, 1974 from Mr. Szymanski regardin- water and sewer systems. Additional information submitted as exhibits is as follows: 2--Letter of October 1, 1974 to Mr. Blais from Mr. Syzmanski regarding airport parkway sewer plant capacity; 3--Letter of September 26, 1974 to Mr. Blai.s from B.F. ',result regarding electric service; ''6--Letter of October 9, 1974 to Ridgewood Estates fror, Rist-Frost, Associates regarding sewerage facilities for the development; 8--Letter of October 14, 1974 to Mr. McNamara from Frederick Tuttle regarding bus service for the development;. 9--Letter of September 3, 1976 from the Fire Department clarifying letter of i August 5, 1974; lO--?revision to City Economic Impact; 12--Utilities plan revised iiOctober 28, 1974. The District Commission held a hearin;; on its own motion on October 23, 1974 with the following parties present: The Applicant, the City of South Bur- lington, the South Burlington Planning Corim-ission, Adjoining Landowner William Robenstein, and the Agency of 'Environmental Conservation. Based on the record, the Commission makes the following preliminary findings of fact. These findings of fact are based on the 10 criteria set forth in §6086(a) of Title 10. 1) The proposed development and subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution, prov.ir?ed that the applicant receives certification that the proposed developTIent and subdivision. conforms to the Department of Health Subdivision Regulations. a. The storm drain syste-,l for the proposed development and subdivision will dischar�e into two small brooks. Catch basins in the storm drain system have been de.si-ned to provide for control of sediment and floating mater- ial.s. '?either the applicant or the association will use salt on any of the paved areas which it controls, as stipulated in the City of South ii Burlington Condition 'umber. 1. The applicant will be required to obtain a discharge perait fro-:: the Department of Water Resources. b. Sewage disposal for the proposed (leveloprient and subdivision will be provided by connection to the South Turl.i-ngton municipal system. ,i c. The anticipated sewage flows are within the capacity of the South Purling - ton sewer plant 2) . ` -2- d. The final design for the connection onto the municipal sewer system will be in accordance with City specifications. The final plans must be sub- mitted to and approved by the Agency of rnvIxonmental Conservation. e. The construction of the connections to the municipal water and sewer lines must be completed prior to construction of the buildings. i 2) The proposed development and subdivision does have sufficient water avail- able for the reasonable foreseeable needs of the development and will not cause an unreasonable burden on the existing water supply. a. Water for the proposed development and subdivision will be provided by connection onto the City of South nurlington water system. s b. The Champlain Water District has stated that there'will be sufficient water available for the proposed development and subdivision. c. The final design plans for connection onto the municipal water will need to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Health. 3) The proposed development and subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. �I a. The applicant will follow tie detailed measures for control of soil erosion during construction submitted as attachment I). 4) The proposed development and subdivision will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions witli respect to use of the highways, waterways, railways, airports and airways, and other means of transpor- tation existing or proposed. 5) a. Streets within the proposed development and subdivision will be construct- ed to City standards except curls and sidewalks will not be provided. b. There were ea>tensive discussions at the local level concerning the con- struction of a side-wal'1 alone :corset Street. Under Condition "lumber 2 agreed upon with the City of South Burlington, the developer will provide a +;ravel walkway along, Dorset Street iron Rild.gewood Drive to Kennedy Drive. c. A footpath t'zrou-11 the developee;.t and adjoining property instead of the proposed ti•aallc.way might be more in keeping with the rural nature of the area. The applicant will check into this possibility. The pro;posed developLIcnt and subdivision *.gill not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the municipality to provide educational services. a. The school directors of the Sout', ".urlington {School District approved the recorxiendation of the Super_utendept of Sc'iools that the construction of the i.idgewood and 71-ne':iurst DevelopmeaL s will not cause an unreason- able bur den on thy: alil ity of t?:e iunicipality to provide educational services. The proposed (lavelop _-ent am! subdivision will. not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of t'i� local 4t;overnme-i-its to provide r1unicipal or ^overnmental services. a. The a-. nlicaut ha.'; submitt� ;' an economic inp<�,ct stater.,e.zt to the City of South Burlinc;ton. -Van :rith the cost conservative of all figures, there is still a postive cas,; flow to the City as a. result of the proposed development and subdivision. b. The Fire C'iief ,its reviewed the plar..3 and found that the proposed devel- s opment and subdivision would create little or no burden on the South Burlington Fire Department. 7) The proposed development a.id subdivision will not Have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. a. The majority of the site is open and will require substantial landscaping.. The applicant will landscape according to the plan submitted with the application. The applicant and the association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping and preserving the character of the landscaping. j b. The applicant will retain the flexibility of siting the lots and houses so as to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible. c. The only signs for the proposed development and subdivision will be standard street si-ns. i d. All utilities within the proposed development and subdivision will be installed underground. e. Lighting within the proposed development and subdivision will be at a low level. The roadside lighting has been reduced as shocm on the plan revised October 28, 1974. 8) The proposed. development and subdivision. is in conformance with a duly adopted capability and development plan. a. The applicant has reached an agreement with the City of South Burlington as to the rate at which units within the proposed development and sub- division will be constructed. b. Although there is excellent agricultural soil within the site of the proposed development and subdivision, there is not enough of the soil i to be of high value for commercial agriculture. i' E c. All buildinns within the r proposed develo ent and subdivision will be P p insulated to minimum standards to conserve energy. Insulating glass will be utilized. d. Sewage and water facilities wit'iin the proposed development and subdivision will be constructed to City standards and taken over by the City. e. The applicant has received letters from the necessary utilities stating that there will be adequate .facilities and services available for the proposed development and subdivision. iq 9) The proposed development and subdivision is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan. i -4- a. The attorney for the City of South Burlington has issued an opinion that the proposed development any'_• subdivision is in conformance with s the local plan. b. There is no duly adopted regional plan with which the proposed devel- opment and subdivision must conform. COiICLUSIONS OF I.AW The development of 100 townhomes and 14-lot subdivision as set forth in the application, attachments A-J, and exhibits 2,3,6,8,9,10, and 12 has been determined by the District 4 Environmental Commission to satisfy criteria 2,3,4,' 5,6,7,3,9, and 10 pursuant to 10 VSA, Chapter 151, §69 6(a). The Commission reserves judgement with respect to criterion 1 pendin issuance of a Certifica— tion of Compliance under the Vermont Department of Iiealth Subdivision Regulations. That Certification requires review of the final design of the connection. onto the municipal sewer system and the final design of connection to the municipal water syste.. Set forth below are the preliminary conditions which shall be made a part of any permit issued. 1. The Coi.uaission i_iaintains continuin.; jurisdiction during the lifetime of the permit and May periodically require that the pernittee file a statement t,lat the project is bring completed ,according to the t terns of the perrii L. 2. T'ue project -Lrea for this development is that land i,'entified in a the plan;; "� :2iete:l r_Lh t?-ic a-; plication . 7^ o portion of the project area .aay ')e used for any ot'ier purposo ci_thout the prior ar.proval of the Corunission. 3. The applicant an(' its successor, the Ilomeoc•nuer's Association shall maintain the landscaping, preserving its character, for the duration of the per;-.u.t. 4. All buildings in the proposed development and subdivision shall be insulated to the minimun standards as shown on the typical detail submitted with the application. Other conditions relative to criterion 1 may be attached as a result of review of the Agency of Environriental Cor..unission under the Subdivision Regulations. Dated at Esse., Junction, Vermont, this hth day of November, 1974. For the District #4 Environmental Commission Curtis T;. Carter Environmental Coordinator State of Vermont W4 AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT October 18, 1974 TO: All Parties to Application 4CO161 FROM: District 4 Environmental Commission SUBJECT: Rescheduling of Hearing Date The hearing on the application of C.B.C. Realty and Development for 100 townhomes and 14 individual lots loca- ted on 57 acres at Dorset and Swift Streets in South Burlington is rescheduled for October 23, 1974. The hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. in the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Conference Room. State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Richard R. Ward 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Dear Mr. Ward: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 10, 1974 After having spoken to Mr. Szymanski and Mrs. Maher this morning on the hearing of the C.B.C. Realty, it has been decided that the hearing will continue as planned. Due to an error in mailing, the hearing notices were not sent to several people, both of whom have consented to have the hearing as scheduled. Please find your copy of the hearing notice enclosed with this letter. Please disregard any previous conversations. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Julie Gilbert Secretary Enclosure u ITOTIC OF ta? L fCATID-�' I1:?ii :TL,1n.I}:TG 10 VSt:, Chapter 151 (Act 250) Pursuant to 10 VSA, 9 6034(b) notice is hereby made that C.B.C. Realty and Development Inc., 86 Suburban Square, So. Burlington, Vermont (applicant's nane and address) filed an application with District Commission # 4 , on _September 26, 1974 (Date) for a land use perni.t for 1nn townhomes and 14 individual lots in (Nature and location of project) cluster concept located on 57 acres at Dorset and Swift Streets in South Burlington,'Vermont Pursuant to 10 VSA, S 6035 a hearing will be held on October 17, 1974 (Date) 1:30 p.m. at C_hitte_nden County Regional Planning Commission Conference (Tine) (Location) Room Parties to the hearing are the applicant, the municipality, the municipal planning commission, the regional planning co fission, state agencies, adjoining property oi•7ners who request a hearing, and such parties as may be designated by the commission. If no party appears in opposition, infornal disposition of the case may be raade by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default as specified in 3 VSA $ 309(d). District Corr.zission 0-A- P-0- Box 108, 58 Pearl Street (.Address) Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 658-3006 Distribution: Applicant Town of Burlington Burlington Planning Commission Chittenden Regional Planning Commission Environmental Conservation Environmental Board Ajoining Landowners State of Vermont AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. William J. Szymanski 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont Dear Mr. Szymanski: DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 10, 1974 RECEIVED OCT 10 1974 MANAr,Ews CITY SO. ©URLING . ON This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning on the C.B.C. Realty hearing. Enclosed is a copy of the hearing. Due to an error in my mailing list, the copy did not get to you. Thank you for understanding, and agreeing to the original day of the hearing. Sincerely, Julie Gilbert Secretary Enclosure 1"._, OF :TEAP.I: ;E, 1'? v A.9 C;,Uptnr :51 (ii.ct 250) Pursuant to 10 VSA,, ? 6034(b) notice is hereby riade that C.B.C. Realty and Development Inc., 86 Suburban Square, So. Burlington, Vermont (,:applicant ° s narle and address) filed an application with District Corrii scion # 4 , on September 26, 1974 (Date) for a land use permit for Inn townhomes and 14 individual. lots in Uature and location of project) cluster concept located on 57 acres at Dorset and Swift Streets in South Burlington,'Vhrmont Pursuant to 10 VJA, 9, 6035 a hearin-; will be held on October 17, 1974 (Date) 1:30 p.m. at Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Conference (Tine) (Location) Room Parties to the hearing are the arplicant, the municipality, the municipal planninc- commission, the regional plannin; cor"'ission, state agencies, adjoining property oi-mers vho request a hearing, and such parties as may be designated by the cor-fission. If no party appears in opposition, informal disposition of the case clay be wade by stipulation, arced settlement, consent order, or default as specified in 3 VSA District CoV.-Assion # 4 p_Q. Box 108, 58 Pearl ,gtrPPt (Address) Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 658-3006 SvUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DIS I RIOT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 FREDERICK H. TUTTLE OFFICE: SOUTH BURLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL Superintendent Dorset Street LAWRENCE E. LECOURS Assistant Superintendent October 14, 1974 Mr. James J. McNamara, Chairman District Environmental Commission #4 211 Killarney Drive Burlington, Vermont 05401 Project #4C0161 C.B.C. Realty & Development, Inc. Dear Mr. McNamara, At its regular meeting on August 14, 1974, the South Burlington School Directors stated the proposed Ridgewood Development would not place an un- reasonable burden on the ability of this municipality to provide educational services. At the last meeting of the Steering Committee (city council, school di- rectors, city manager, school superintendent) held on September 26, 1974, thie school directors pointed out that our buses will not be traveling roads in this development because it is district policy not to utilize private roads in t�ie transporting of students to and from school. Because of our desire to provide for the safety of our students, and be- cause of the number of students who would be waiting on either Dorset Street or Swift Street, it is the expressed desire of the school board that a third lane in an appropriate location be provided. This would allow the bus to pull off the main traveled way and would also provide safe and adequate space for the students to wait, load and unload. Our overall goal is to ensure safe condi- tions for students who are waiting for or boarding the buses. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, -ve-0 04 ; 7F_ 0� - - - �40 Frederick H. Tuttle Superintendent of Schools FHT:c cc: Mr. John Lucas, Business Manager Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager Mr. Edward Ryan, Chief Education Field Services