HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-21-10_1720 1730 Spear St_Alan Long_SK
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD-21-10 1720 1730 Spear St. - Sketch Plan Application
DATE: May 4, 2021 Development Review Board meeting
Alan Long has submitted sketch plan application #SD-21-10 for a planned unit development on two existing
39.2 acre lots each developed with a single-family home. The planned unit development consists of forty-nine
homes including five (5) perpetually affordable units and 9.3 acres of open space proposed to be dedicated to
the City of South Burlington, 1420 & 1430 Spear Street.
The Board began review of the application on April 6, 2021 and continued the hearing to May 4 to complete
review of the staff comments from that date and to allow time for public comment. Staff comments not
reviewed on April 6 follow. Staff recommends the Board discuss the remaining staff comments and then accept
public comment. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. Numbering is preserved from the April 6
staff memo.
Staff reminds the Board, the applicant, and potentially interested persons that the Board’s responsibility under
24 VSA §4417 is defined as follows:
(f) The approval of a proposed planned unit development shall be based on findings by the
appropriate municipal panel that the proposed planned unit development is in conformance with the
municipal plan and satisfies other requirements of the bylaws.
In particular, the Board is only to review the application under the applicable Land Development Regulations.
An application is subject to the Land Development Regulations in effect when a complete preliminary plat
application is submitted. At this time, the application is subject to the Land Development Regulations effective
December 28, 2020.
A) SEQ-NR Standards
Street Patterns
Substantiated by the regulating plan, the SEQ-NR standards require development blocks no more than 500 feet
(with 300 feet preferred), no dead-end streets, and lot depth to width ratios of 1:2. The road segment is
crossed by private roads at a 300 to 500 ft interval. Staff supports the provided street layout, but considers
that additional attention to roadway cross sections is needed at the next stage of review when driveway and
street tree locations are developed.
Residential Design
Homes are required to face on streets. The applicant has proposed a mix of single-family, two-family, and four-
family homes, interspersed through the neighborhood. The four-family homes are rear loaded and share a
#SD-20-37
2
driveway. Staff supports this approach as it allows the four-family homes to be designed to have a strong
street presence and be complimentary to the single and two-family homes and the adjacent neighborhood.
The location of the four-family homes are nearest to the twelve-family homes in South Village, and in fact a trail
connection is proposed to the South Village trail network.
In terms of housing design, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide sample home
elevations at the next stage of review. Staff considers a design requirements document, which specifies both a
minimum amount of similarity and variation between homes, should be provided.
7. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how the homes will be either screened or made
visually compatible with adjacent development, and provide feedback as necessary.
B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD criteria pertain to water and wastewater capacity, grading and erosion control, traffic and circulation,
wetland protection, visual compatibility, open spaces, fire safety, roadway and infrastructure design,
compatibility with the comprehensive plan, and stormwater management. Many PUD criteria are identical to
SEQ criteria.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plan on March 22, 2021 and offers the following
comments.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “1720 & 1730 Spear Street- Site Plans” site plan prepared by
O’Leary- Burke Civil Associates, PLC, Inc., dated 2/21/2021. We would like to offer the following comments:
1. This project is divided between Bartlett Brook and Munroe Brook watershed. Both watersheds are
listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC).
2. Has the applicant verified the wetland delineation with VT DEC? ANR mapping shows a Class 2
wetland delineation in line with the actual development.
3. The project proposes to create greater than 1/2 acre of impervious area. It therefore requires the
applicant to follow the standards set forth in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) Article 12.03.
Staff considers the proposed configuration unlikely to be affected if the wetland delineation is modified slightly.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the plan on March 18, 2021 and offers the following
comment.
I foresee a pressure reducing valve in the design, and some large diameter pipe on one street, but
nothing extreme.
#SD-20-37
3
C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of structures
to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area. Specific standards
speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.
Landscaping
8. There is a minimum required landscaping required for all new buildings except single family homes on their own
lots. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they propose to expend the minimum
required landscaping budget, which will be substantial, given that the open space areas are already relatively
well landscaped.
Waste Disposal
It does not appear the applicant has yet contemplated waste disposal and dumpster areas for the four-family
homes. Staff recommends this be addressed at the next stage of review.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
1
Marla Keene
From:Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:45 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comment on Long development proposal: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Marla and Paul,
Would you please send my email to all of the DRB members. Thank you.
Janet Bellavance
April 1, 2021
c
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,:
I am writing to the DBR regarding the sketch plan that Alan Long will submit on April 6, 2021. I urge the DRB to postpone approving this 49 unit development on land identified in both the 2002 and 2020 Open Space report as being the highest priority for natural resource conservation in our city.
Please postpone this decision until the new Environmental Protection Standards are in place. This pattern of development is, after all, what motivated the citizens of South Burlington to enact Interim Zoning in the first place. In Mr. Long’s presentation to the City Council, he referred to this project as “infill development”
saying it connects two new developments along Spear Street. This line of thinking in advocating for development of this parcel is troublesome. It would lead us to justify developing any open space that abuts current development thereby creating an endless strip of houses. We do NEED infill development or
rather “redevelopment” of the many abandoned commercial spaces that blight our City Center and other high density transit corridors. This is a practical and highly desirable way to address affordable housing in our city. Yet, instead of redevelopment conversations which would keep our city vibrant and livable, we
seem to be targeting our open space resources for development.
This destruction of open space forever, ignores our responsibility and limited opportunity to proactively mitigate climate change. The time is now to protect our open spaces and the resources they provide to all
our residents. This parcel in particular contains wetlands which provide riparian connectivity, a large habitat block and forest block, as well as prime ag soils and farmland.
Thank you for all your work. I urge you to be forward thinking in protecting our environment and securing
the future of our citizens.
Janet Bellavance
2
25 Brewer Parkway
1
Marla Keene
From:Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 12:47 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Cc:Rosanne Greco
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comment on Long development proposal: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Marla and Paul,
Would you please send my email to all of the DRB members. Thank you.
Rosanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,
I am writing in regard to the proposed housing development coming before the Board next week: Sketch Plan
Application SD‐21‐10.
This housing development is being proposed to be built on some — and near other — especially important natural
resource lands. Building on this land conflicts with guidance from the Comprehensive Plan and directives of the Land
Development Regulations. These city documents reference information and advice contained in at least 12 expert
studies commissioned by the city to analyze the natural resource lands in South Burlington. All of these reports and the
Comprehensive Plan rank the land on which this development is being proposed to be built as being THE highest valued
land in South Burlington in that it connects to the Great Swamp. I expect the city staff will have made you aware of this.
I am opposed to this housing proposal not just because it conflicts with city guidance. I am opposed to it because I am
connected to it and rely on this land to survive. Although I am not an abutter, I, and all of the other occupants of our
city and beyond, depend on this land and other ecological lands like it to sustain us. This area contains trees, shrubs,
grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas, fertile soil, wildlife, pollinators, etc., — all of which are essential to human and
animal survival. They become especially critical as the effects of climate change spread across the planet.
I realize you are bound by the city regulatory documents in your decisions. However, you are also given latitude to make
subjective decisions in some cases. I strongly urge you to make your “default” the preservation of the environment in
this housing proposal, and in all future housing proposals if they destroy natural resources.
Environmental scientists are warning us that human beings in the future risk extinction, or severely harsh living
conditions if we do not immediately make drastic changes to the way we use fossil fuels, and stop destroying the
environmental resources which have the ability to remediate the ill effects of climate change. Please keep the greater
good in mind.
2
Thank you for your service to our city, and for making environmentally responsible land use decisions.
Rosanne Greco
63 Four Sisters Rd
South Burlington
497‐0711
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,
I am writing in response to the proposed housing development coming before the Board next
week: Sketch Plan Application SD‐21‐10. My husband and I are the current owners of 1455
Dorset Street (Parcel # 0570‐11455) and abut the proposed development.
I am writing to express my opposition to the planned development on the 39.2 acre Long
property. I respect that the Long family has proposed to conserve many of the resources on the
site. However, as someone who voluntarily served on the Open Space Interim Zoning
Committee, I urge you to strongly recommend to the applicant to redo the sketch plan to
preserve all of the forests and habitat blocks on the site.
On December 17, 2018, the City Council appointed the Open Space Committee who’s charge
was:
“the prioritization for conservation of existing open spaces, forest blocks, and working
landscapes in South Burlington in the sustenance of our natural ecosystem, scenic
viewsheds, and river corridors.”
The work of this committee was no small task and proved to be more than just a once a month
discussion. The identification and investigation of the natural resources of 189 parcels required
a tremendous effort on the part of the whole committee. I can only speak for myself, and as a
volunteer, I spent countless hours devoting time and energy to this important report. The result
of this research concluded that the property in question scored a highest priority for natural
resources. The property in question was positive for riparian connectivity, wetlands, source
water protection, large habitat block, grassland, forest block, prime ag and farmland. The parcel
is also adjacent to the Great Swamp, making it especially important to keep the connectivity of
natural resources intact as nature intended. It is truly a goldmine of natural resources that are
forever irreplaceable.
In an earlier meeting, the property owner referred to the proposed development as “infill
development.” How is the destruction of important natural resources considered “infill”?
Tearing down of forests and other resources is not “infill”. Focusing on vacant commercial lots
and deteriorating buildings downtown to create a vibrant city is infill, and smart development.
When our natural resources have been depleted, what will be the attraction of moving to South
Burlington?
Finally, on a personal note, these city committees are purely volunteer. As a volunteer who gave
over a year of my time and countless hours, I feel as though my efforts on this project are being
completely disregarded. How can the city expect to recruit volunteers for these important
positions if our hard work appears to be futile?
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Respectfully,
Alyson Chalnick
Development Review Board 1751 Spear St
City of South Burlington, VT South Burlington, VT 05403
c/o Marla Keene jennifercrand@gmail.com
(802) 846-4106
mkeene@sburl.com
3/29/2021
Re: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10 of Alan Long
To the DRB:
Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments regarding Mr. Long’s application to create a PUD at 1720-1730
Spear St. We are an abutting landowner and will attend your April 6 public meeting at which the sketch plan for Mr.
Long’s proposal will be considered. As such, we have interested party status and will continue to maintain my right to
appeal.
In short, we oppose this project and ask you to do the same as allowed by procedural rules and policies.
Our objections to this application are many. We are sympathetic to Mr. Long and his desire to maximize the value of his
property but doing so against the rules and wishes of a community he does not reside in is not right or fair. That said, we
understand that the purpose of this Sketch Plan Application and subsequent review is not to make any formal decision
but to pass along public and DRB feedback to the developer. As such, please include our feedback in the record and
consider adjusting your feedback in light of our concerns.
Please consider whether or not there is a need for 49 additional units in the City of South Burlington. The fact is that
under Interim Zoning, which was extended by vote as recently as last November, and under the Comprehensive Plan,
there is to be a moratorium on additional subdivisions and developments in the South East Quadrant. Concurrent to Mr.
Long’s application there are as many as 1200 additional units planned for the City, not only few of which are on the
abutting property at South Village. O’Brien Farm, which is planning some 900 units, sits well within the exempt area
designated for development under Interim Zoning. Mr. Long’s parcels do not.
Mr. Long’s application reassures the committee that his application is consistent with the new LDRs proposed by the
Planning Commission, but there is no way he could possibly know that until the new LDRs are final and approved. The
entire purpose of Interim Zoning was to slow development to protect the City and its residents while new, strategic,
deliberate LDRs were put in place. We would propose that Mr. Long's development should similarly need to wait on
those new regulations rather than preempt them.
Mr. Long is correct that water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas do extend along Spear St, but there is no assurance or
documentation that any of them are sufficient to meet the increased demand his proposal will cause. Speaking as
residents of the street, we can attest to the fact that other recent developments have caused sewer issues requiring
shutting down the system for periods of time. We can say with certainty that one public utility that is incapable of
handling the increased demand Mr. Long’s Development would put on it, is Spear Street itself. The road is already
overused; it is heavily trafficked as a “feeder road” and by heavy trucks (for which it was not designed); and the turns at
South Pointe and Preserve Roads, by which the 49 additional units will access their homes, are already dangerous and
create backups on the road. It is not uncommon for us to have to wait a significant time to leave our own driveway and it
is often as a result of South Village and South Pointe residents beating us to gaps in the congestion.
Mr. Long states in his application that “The project will be consistent in look and feel with the adjacent existing
developments.” Frankly, this is untrue. The South Village development orients its homes towards Spear Street and
provides a significant buffer in the form of working agricultural fields and buildings that are open to the public, serve the
public, and preserve the town’s agricultural heritage. From Spear, north of Allen, there is little indication of the size of the
South Village development and all the homes appear to be in place along Spear. South Pointe is largely not visible from
Spear Street at all. Mr. Long’s sketch is the opposite. The homes will orient east, away from Spear, and will butt up
against Spear, from the rear, inconsistent with every other Spear Street home in South Burlington that orients west and is
set significantly back from the road. From the four properties across Spear from the Long properties, no fewer than
seven backyards will be viewable where currently there are two front yards.
Mr. Long makes mention of promoting access to the fields and wood of his property and we can attest to that. His
property, the abutting parts of Great Swamp, and the connecting parts of South Village are all extensively used by the
local residents. What the application lacks is any development of public goods and resources in exchange for the loss of
green space and working landscape he proposes. There should be parking, maintained trails, deeded and conserved
rights of way, and protections for these opportunities in perpetuity. Additionally, there are plans in the City to develop
recreation paths and sidewalks along the west side of Spear St and a known gap between the existing paths from South
Village/Allen Road to Overlook Park. We would propose that any development that is approved, despite opposition and
the current Interim Zoning, be required to provide a recreation path connection along the east side of Spear in addition
to providing and protecting the other recreational resources listed above.
One area of significant concern that has not been addressed in any materials we have seen to date is that of the
watershed connecting Great Swamp down through Spear St, Chapin Road, and down into Baycrest. Our property, and
several around it, have significant amounts of water runoff down from the height of land (the Long property). Our
concern is that no one has assessed the impact on the homes below the long property when significant soil filtration and
holding capacity is lost and exchanged for impervious surfaces adding to runoff into downhill properties and ultimately
the Lake. There is mention of some stormwater control in the application, but nothing that suggests protection for the
homes down-aquifer from the development.
The current LDRs, specifically on page 147, state that the
“Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and
natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well-planned residential use in the
approximately 3,200-acre area of the City shown on the Official Zoning Map as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural
features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique
resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the
judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly
permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses.”
Clearly well-planned residential neighborhoods are a part of the approved uses for the South East Quadrant. However,
this application prioritizes development over all the other stated priorities, including open space, scenic views, natural
resources, habitat protection, and agriculture. It should also be noted that these properties are part of a contiguous
network of habitat for hawks, deer, fox, turkey, and other animals that extends from the Great Swamp through our and
the Cone’s property all the way south into Shelburne.
It should be noted that in its report “Natural Capital Valuation of Interim Zoning Open Space Parcels, “commissioned by
the City of South Burlington itself, Earth Economics places of value of between $18 and $60 Million (over 20 years, at a
3% Discount Rate) on these two parcels remaining open. The City and its residents should not be asked to turn this value
over to a developer in exchange for questionable (and potentially insufficient to cover services) tax revenue.
It is also worth noting that this development runs counter to a number of stated goals and strategies of the South
Burlington Comprehensive Plan, specifically in reference to the South East Quadrant, including:
●Pg. 3-29 which states “The development and ultimate land use pattern in the Southeast Quadrant of South
Burlington is of critical importance to South Burlington’s future. Creating a balance between housing,
complimentary land uses, and conservation, especially conservation of key natural communities and habitat
features, will happen through continuous planning, public involvement, and the thoughtful use of the City’s land
acquisition funds and regulatory tools.” Developing one of the last open parcels is not a balancing of other land
uses.
●Pg. 3-31 which refers to Spear Street Frontage as “the area’s key significance is that it acts as a buffer between
the Great Swamp and the more developed areas to the west.” Developing 49 homes is not buffering.
●Pg. 3-38, Objective 60 which states: “Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open
space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for
development.” This area is both contiguous open space AND not specifically designated for development.
●Pg. 3-38 Objective 61 which states: “Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture
that complement and help sustain a growing city and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining
agricultural lands.”Developing land that still grows apple trees and was historically part of working orchards is
not maintaining opportunities for traditional agriculture.
●Pg. [204] Future Land Use Map which shows these two parcels as “Very Low Intensity- principally open space”
and not as medium or high density residential.
Mr. Long states in his application that he has worked with O’Leary Burke Civil Associates. However, he does not make
mention of any other interested parties. We are concerned that there is potential for Mr. Long to be preparing to transfer
his development rights as part of a Purchase and Sale Agreement or otherwise working on behalf of larger commercial
interests without disclosing them.
Please do not misunderstand; as stated earlier, we have nothing personal against Mr. Long and we understand the desire
to maximize the value of assets. That is the basis of our economy and of free markets. But the job of Government is to
protect its citizens from the externalities created by the pursuit of self-interested profit. Mr. Long’s application generates
value for him at the expense of the current and future homeowners around his parcels and future generations of South
Burlington residents, of which he is no longer one. There are many ways that Mr. Long could capture the value of these
two parcels without developing them and we would encourage the DRB to insist on them to the greatest extent it is
allowed. We do not want to take away any of his rights, but we insist on upholding the rules and values that the City’s
residents have agreed upon.
Please consider requesting, suggesting, or demanding significant changes to this plan in order to protect the nature of
our neighborhoods, the green space of the South-East Quadrant, and the agricultural landscape we chose to live in. We
humbly ask that the feedback from this Sketch Plan review include overhauling and downscaling the project even if it
cannot be outright rejected at this time.
Sincerely,
Jennifer C. Rand
Homeowner
1751 Spear St
Norman C. Staunton
Resident
1751 Spear St
April 22, 2021
To: South Burlington Development Review Board
Re: Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-10
The South Pointe Homeowners Association Board of Directors would like to submit an update
with photos to supplement our March 22, 2021 concerns and provide additional information
about the areas east side of Parkside Drive where 7 houses are planned. In the approved South
Pointe development plan, no houses could be sited east of Parkside Drive. We have attached
some photos to show the site in relation to South Pointe and South Village neighborhoods, and
photos showing the standing water on the paths and where houses would be sited.
7 Proposed Houses East of Parkside Drive
A walk through of this area on April 17 revealed standing water between hummocks of grass
where these houses would be built. This land is approximately 6 feet below the grade of
Parkside Drive. Significant site preparation will be required to keep basements above the level
of standing water, and significant fill will also be required between Parkside Drive and these
houses. To prevent runoff from lawns entering the Monroe Brook watershed, significant
retaining walls may be required to direct runoff into the stormwater retention pond shown in
the southeast corner of the developed area.
Arial Photo Looking East – This view shows the proposed location of 7 houses on the East side
of Parkside Drive; the wooded area furthest back is NRP designated land, the wetland area
begins at the edge of the woods and comes across the open area toward the road. The entire
area east of Parkside Drive falls within Wetlands designated on Map 7 “Primary Conservation
Areas” in the 2016 Comprehensive plan. This same area is designated as a Habitat Block in the
revised LDR-20-01 and the Natural Resources Map, 3/24/2021 draft.
Arial Photo Looking West - This view shows the Long property in relation to South Pointe to the
north (right) and South Village to the south (left). Spear Street is at the top and the wetland
area is the field at the bottom.
View Looking South Along Parkside Drive – This view shows the elevation change between the
current elevation of Parkside Drive and the land east of Parkside Drive where the 7 houses are
proposed. The right-of-way boundary for Parkside Drive is approximately where the person is
standing.
Photos of Standing Water Where 7 Houses Are Proposed – Photos taken on April 17, 2021 after
the approximate 1” of rainfall on April 15 and 16. This light rainfall collected as surface water
between hummocks of grass just below Parkside Drive and this surface water is visible at 100
feet and 200 feet towards the east.
Below Parkside Drive
Approximately 100 feet east of Parkside Drive
Standing Water
Approximately 200 feet east of Parkside Drive
Respectfully submitted,
Francis MacDonald
Chair – South Pointe Homeowners Association
1
Marla Keene
From:Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 10:39 AM
To:Marla Keene; Sandy Dooley
Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: Affordable Housing Committee / 1720 & 1730 Spear Street
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Marla,
Please see the motion from the Affordable Housing Committee in regards to the project at 1720 & 1730 Spear St. Asking
for distribution to DRB as this was shared with the city council but they are now seeking DRB feedback.
Thank you,
Chris Trombly
Chair, Affordable Housing Committee.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:23 PM
Subject: Affordable Housing Committee / 1720 & 1730 Spear Street
To: Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>, Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com>, Thomas Chittenden
<tchittenden@sburl.com>, Tim Barritt <tbarritt@sburl.com>, Matt Cota <mcota@sburl.com>
Cc: Kevin Dorn <KDorn@sburl.com>, Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>, Sandy Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net>,
Leslie Black‐Plumeau <lblack‐plumeau@vhfa.org>, Vincent Bolduc <vbolduc@smcvt.edu>, John Simson
<simsonjohn0840@gmail.com>, Patrick O'Brien <pobrien@sdireland.com>
Councilors,
At its April 13, 2021, meeting the Affordable Housing Committee passed the
following motion, for transmission to the City Council, regarding Interim
Zoning application #Z‐21‐01 for a development on lots located 1720 & 1730
Spear Street. The motion passed unanimously.
The South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee endorses Interim Zoning
application #Z‐21‐01 and encourages the City Council to approve it. The
bases for the Committee's endorsement are as follows: the application's (1)
adherence to the proposed Environmental Protection Standards, in particular
the conservation of the Habitat area (29 acres) located on the property; (2)
its adherence to the draft Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD
regulations, in particular the presence of different housing types; (3) its
2
voluntary inclusion of affordable dwelling units; (4) its establishment of a
the physical connection between the South Pointe and South Village
developments; (5) its elimination of two curb cuts on Spear Street; and (6)
as a result of collaboration with City staff, its reflection of the work
being done under the City's Interim Zoning bylaw.
Thank you,
Chris Trombly
Chair, Affordable Housing Committee