Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH 6 - Supplemental - 1302 1340 1350 1404 1406 Spear StreetAta John hinklage, ,g..Q�; an Development Review Board, 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, Vt 05403 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 October 2, 2009 Re: Farrell D velopme Fear John: I'm writing to express my strong opposition, as an abutter, to the latest Spear -Meadows proposal. I will try to be brief and focus ed, as I'm sure you are inundated with paperwork. First, let me acknowledge that the DRB maintains a heavy work schedule, and I commend and thank all those members who volunteer for this important committee. As you well know, the Farrells received approval from the DRB for a develop., 1 rit including 31 single family units nearly 4 years ago, but they were stopped at the t 250 hearings due to Prime Agricultural Soils issues. They have subsequently the a '�vPlopment including duplex and triplex buildings, essentially an apartment -,omplex. .;staling an unbelievable 93 units. They justify this on the basis of Transfer +.)evelc-p.raer.t Rights for which they have a purchase option from the Leduc family. The TDR concept has some appeal, permitting hi gher density housing in select areas, while ensuring land preservation in others. To my knowledge, there have not yet been any developments yet in South Burlington, certainly none on the scale proposed by Farrell, employing TDR's. Approval of this proposal in anything close to its present form, would be a disastrous precedent for our City, and open it to justified bitter criticism for years to come. During the DRB hearings for the prior Farrell proposal, the neighbors argued that the development was grossly incompatible with the 3 to 5 acre properties to the west (Spear St.) and east ( Skiffs, Grabowskis and Meadowood Drive, with Scollins and Kleh abutting). The DRB inexplicably disagreed, reasoning that the proposed development was similar to Pinnacle at Spear to the South. The present proposal is grossly incompatible with ANY of these properties. I am incredulous that the staff comments on this proposal focus on unit density and don't even mention that the development would be GROSSLY incompatible with ALL adjacent neighborhoods, and I urge you to look carefully at this aspect. I would respectfully remind the DRB that almost all the neighbors to the east and west have been tax -paying residents for 30 years or more, and chose their homes because they wanted to live in the country, and were assured when the y Prchased their sites by the City that at most 2 houses could be built in that field (zoned at one house per 10 acres). When the area was rezoned about 15 years ago, we objected, but were assured that the DRB would be constituted to address subsequent development proposals to determine how they it with the zoning laws AND with adjacent properties. I feel the Board let down these neighbors 4 years ago, and that to su al, would constitute a gross betrayal. Essentially, the Board would have supported pt the present s93 families, most of whom don't even live in our City now, at the expense of its long-term residents. This gross incompatibility with adjacent homes and neighborhoods should be sufficient to dismiss the Farrell proposal, but I will add many further objections. At the time of the initial proposal about 6 years ago, I wrote to Gary Farrell, on behalf of many neighbors, to convey UVMs strong interest in the land, as it adjoined their farm property at the southeast corner of Spear and Swift Streets. I suggested that we have a dialogue to discuss the possibility of oilr purchasing the property and deeding it to UVM. Gary chose not to even respond to the letter; that the DRB showed no interest in facilitating such a dialogue, or was impotent to do so, was a great disappointment to us. When Tom Kleh and I first learned of the initial plan to develop the field, we offered to provide access via the east -west path between our yards, for the recreation patl: to connect between the new development and Meadowood Drive. At that time wL anticipated that the DRB process would result in a project compatible with the neighbors, perhaps a maximum of 12 single family dwellings. In our judgment the fact that the zoning laws ALLOWED a maximum of 1.2 units per acre for a total buildout of 31 units, did not require that the DRB GRANT that full density. When our spouses and neighbor; saw the final plan, given security and privacy considerations, and the unwillingness of the Farrells to communicate with us, we withdrew our offer for the recreation path. We es support the concept of interconnectivity of neighborhoods, but we did not feel that the behavior of the Farrells or, for that matter, that of the DRB, justified our cooperation at this point. Should the DRB decide to revise approval to a more tasteful and compatible development, we would be willing to reconsider. It is worth noting that during the discussions several years ago, it was made clear to Eric that the recreation path belonged, and would be placed, immediately along the eastern boundary of the property. He has nevertheless suggested different siting, obviously to allow more buildings to be squeezed in. I've discussed this with Bill Cimonetti of the Rec Path Committee, who shares my recollection and position. The neighbors in Pinnacle at Spear have an additional reason to be incensed. Most of them had no idea that the cul-de-sac at the northern end of their development represented a future right-of-way, and John Dinklage's suggestion that they should have known because it was included in the town's master plan isn't persuasive. Indeed, I've met 2 realtors who actually pursued sale of the lot(s) on that cul-de-sac, only to subsequently n learn of the right of way. I subsequently wrote to Chuck Hafter and strogly suggested that a sign be posted at such future rights of way, indicating the fact, but this has not been done (see his response to me dated 4/9/04). Traffic impact on Spear Street is another obvious issue. Even the previously approved 31 units would have an obvious impact, but anything approaching 93 units would pose serious ingress and egress considerations. This development as proposed is not only an affront to all the neighbors, but to the City itself. This land serves as the de facto window to our southeast quadrant. This project clearly does not belong in that location. The proposal is essentially a "hail Mary pass" by the Farrells to optimize profit, at the expense of the neighbors AND the City. In your deliberations, please remember that you represent the neighbors' interests, and those of the City, as well as those of the developer. Respectfilll r Michael J. Scollins� RICK HUBBARD 131.7 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403-7-104 Phone 802-864-3330 E-Mail: rick(a,rickhubbard.ory October 5, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Comments from adjoining property owner at 1317 Spear St. regarding Spear Meadows Sketch plan application #SO-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists ot• 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) constr icting 22 threc (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. Greetings: I am the resident at 1317 Spear Street in South Burlington and am an authorized agent of the property owner (See attached authorization) St. Clair Group, Inc. In addition to points being raised by other abutters in regard to the revised Spear Meadows application I'd like to submit for the record the following comments and observations. An original of this letter is being mailed to the above address and it is also being sent in advance by e-mail with several cc's. Roger Fridholm, President of the St. Clair Group. Inc. may wish to submit additional comment on this project. Intersection S.Creening at 1317 Spear Street. The property at 1317 Spear Street is located directly west of, and across from the proposed Spear Meadows Development's primary highway access onto Spear Street. Thus, during night-time, every car exiting the development onto Spear Street will briefly stop with their headlights pointed directly at this house and its east facing bedrooms and other rooms, prior to turning either north or south onto Spear Street. For this reason, the developer and the 1317 Spear Street property owner have entered into an Agreement in connection with their final plat application #SD-05-96 of Spear Meadows LLC to the City of South Burlington. This agreement provides for landscaping and a screening plan to mitigate the headlight problem. I would like to have this agreement and its effective completion entered as a condition of any Development Review Board Approval. Board of Adjustment require that current landscape plans for Spear Street road width I'd recommend the widening and a large earth berm and stone wall construction in front of the Gary and Jane Farrell home (See sheets LIa, L2, L7 and C 1.8) be changed to adequately include and reflect both any required paved turn lane plus a paved 6'wide shoulder on both sides of Spear Street along the entire Spear Meadows property fronting Spear Street. This is consistent with recommendations of the 2004 Spear Street Corridor Study Plan which was contracted for, received and studied, and after public review, approved and endorsed by our City Council That study called for street improvements to include the construction of adequate, safe, pedestrian and cycling lanes on both the east and west shoulders of the street. At present it's not clear the Spear Meadows plans allow for this on the east side of Spear Street and it will be both difficult and expensive to redesign and rebuild and re -landscape the berm and wall in the future if this is not anticipated now. Spear Street is the primary and preferred route for bicyclist heading south out of both Burlington and South Burlington and for returning bicyclists. Hundreds pass by most days from early spring through late fall and many continue to bicycle in winter. No other South Burlington through street seems to carr y �s much bicycle traffic mixed in with motorists. For the most part, southbound bicyclists on Spear Street have a 5-6 foot paved shoulder to ride on which separates them from southbound motorists and provides reasonable safety. However, northbound cyclists for the most part have no adequate paved shoulder at all and thus must ride in the travel lane with motorists. This is extremely dangerous for both bicyclists and motorists, which translates over time into a higher likelihood of periodic accidents and injuries with even the possibility of a death. My own experience is that approximately 8 out of 10 motorists will pass dangerously -when overtaking a northbound bicyclist on Spear Street when there is also oncoming traffic that will, without an adjustment of motorist speed, result in a dangerous 3 abreast "brush by" of the bicyclist without the 4' of separation between the right -most part of the vehicle (side view mirror) and the leftmost part of the bicyclist (hantlebar or mirror) as recommended by the League of American Bicyclists for motorists overtaking bicyclists. I serve on the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee and installation of an adequate and safe paved shoulder for bicyclists along the entire east side of Spear Street is the Committee's highest near term road reconstruction priority to improve bicycling and motorist safety in South Burlington. This priority recommendation was adopted by the Committee in January of 2009 and presented to the South Burlington City Council in May of 2009. A copy of this letter is attached. presentation the very first sheet (not numbered) titled Spear Meadows 12/5/2005 Final Plan Submittal, title reference for 1317 Spear Street is improperly labeled as the Consuela Bailey Estate c/o L Hac et, the 1640-01350. Title to this property had already been transferred to the St. Clair Group, Inc. at that time. The St. Clair Group, Inc. remains the current property owner. Your attention in this matter. KIcnard."Rick" Hubbard Agent for the St. Clair Group, Inc. January 2009 MEMORANDUM COPY SUBJECT: SOUTH BURLINGTON'S SPEAR STREET CORRIDOR ADOPTED January, 2009; Presented May, 2009. TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CC: CHUCK HAFTER The importance of the Spear Street Corridor, a "class 2 town highway" connecting US 2 (Williston Road at UVM) to Shelburne and municipalities south of South Burlington, to vehicle commuters and recreational users is well known and demonstrated. South Burlington contracted for, received and studied, and after public review, approved and endorsed the Spear Street Corridor Study in 2004. That study called for street improvements to include the construction of adequate, safe, pedestrian and cycling lanes on both the east and west shoulders of the street. The Recreation Path Committee urges the City Council to ado t plans to bring the vision of this study to fruition. p Spear Street is an attractive and popular street for recreational cycling, walking, roller ski:;ig, and other typical bike and ped. recreational uses. It also has become an increasingly popular bicycle commuting rovt,: It unlikely that any other street in the City of South Burlington enjoys as much bicycle r.fF The Spear Street right of way is adequate to support eleven or twelve foot carriage ways and substantial multi -use shoulder lanes. In the 1990's a minor widening of the street from Swift Street south to Allen Road, coupled with a shifting of the painted center line, allowed for the construction of a nominally six foot wide recreational lane on the west side of the street between UVM and the Shelburne town line., In 2008 South Burlington redirected funds planned for the substantial paving upgrade of Spear Street to paving Dorset Street between Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. South Burlington did, in 2008, contract for the "shim coat" paving of the most deteriorated portions of Spear, that north of Swift Street. These were welcome improvements. The need to repave all of Spear Street remains, but is scheduled now to sometime in the future. be The Recreation Path Committee proposes to the City Council that within the City's Capital Improvement and Expenditure Plan a Spear Street Corridor Plan be created, scheduled, funded, and implemented. Such a plan would include all those improvements necessary to create two, adequate and safe, bike and ped. lanes for the full length of the street, joining the lanes currently being constructed on Spear Street in Shelburne. The Rec. Path Committee further proposes that recreation impact fees generated by the development of SouthPointe, South Village, and any other development on or adjacent to Spear Street be designated to be used in accomplishing the Spear Street Corridor Study Plan. The Committee would heartily support any plans for incremental construction to prepare for the building of the easterly shoulder path on Spear. South Buffington WScreationafftth Committee St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Grosse Pointe, MI 48230 May 16, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: This letter authorizes Richard M. "Rick" Hubbard to represent St. Clair Group, Ina, the owner of property at 1317 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont in d+scussions regarding the proposed "Spear Meadows -Farrell - 20 Lot Subdivision" and the addition of a left turn lane on Spear Street approxirnately opposite our 1317 Spear Street property. Mr. Hubbard currently leases the 1317 Spear St. property from the St. Clair Group. In connection with the above, this letter of authorization is intended to include, but not be limited to, discussions on our behalf between Mr. Hubbard and the developer of Spear Meadows and its consultants, the City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning, the Development Review Board and the Department of Public Works, Sincerely, St. Clair Grow0JI`nnc. By: R99-9r Fridholm, President So Burlington Dev. Review Board Attn: John Dinklage Chair Oct. 6, 2009 My name is Diane Muhr and I have lived at 1408 Spear Street since 1987. My land and house will be directly impacted by Spear Meadows. When the plan was originally Presented for 32 units I did not have any objections. However, now that it has been resubmitted for 92 units I have major concerns. First, it does not conform to the rest of the neighborhood that surrounds it. The development is surrounded by single family homes with % to several acre yds. that density should occur near city centers but this is not the place for that amarPlan) ount of I agree density. The overall City plan (appendix E Southeast Quadrant Goals Based designates this area as Neighbor Density 2. Ninety-two units is totally out of character vrith the existing neighborhood. None of the surrounding area has multiunit dwellings. if this complex is built as planned it will "overwhelm" the character of the SEQ that we, as residents, have come to love so much. Another factor is that there is not enough common land that could be used as a park for kids to play or adults to enjoy as well. There does not appear to be any provision for any type of recreational opportunity except for a recreation path that is mandatory. Ideally, from my personal perspective, I would love to see the area behind my house left undisturbed. The road to this area has to navigate over a wetland just to access that portion of the development. There is also a conspicuous absence of buffers between the existing neighborhood and the planned development. Multiunit developments in other parts of the SEQ have some sort of buffer i.e. open land area or a large berm. There are no provisions for this in Spear Meadows. I am in agreement that the Farrell's have a right to develop their land but it seems like the "rules" keep changing about what is acceptable and what is not. Many of the neighbors living adjacent to this property have lived here a long time and feel that the rural character of the area is going to be lost. It just doesn't seem possible that this kind of development should be allowed with the amount of density proposed. Thank you for reading this letter and hopefully addressing some of the issues raised above. Diane Muhr SEQ resident 1408 Spear St. 862-7833 Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John, I'm writing mainly to express my concern about and opposition to the "Spear Meadows" development project. My principle concern is the increased traffic on Spear and Swift Streets which is a problem for us here on Meadowood Drive even now but there are also a myriad of other problems that come with such high density. I also- take this opportunity to thank you for your significant and long standing service to the community of South Burlington. Sincerely, Jack Gersbach 213 Meadowood Drive South Burlington Daniel A. Seff & Debbie Hernberg 210 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403-7401 (802) 865-5221 VIA FIRST-CLASS MA>I, October 2, 2009 Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: "Shear Meadows" Development / Sketch plan applicatior, #Su-09_42 Dear Mr. Dinklage: We write to express opposition to the proposed "Spear Meadows" development, which is on the Development Review Board's agenda for the October 6th meeting We live on Meadowood Drive, which is around the corner from the Spear Meadows site. Vehicular traffic on Swift and Spear Streets is already excessive, as well as dangerous for pedestrians, joggers and cyclists. Adding ninety-three additional housing units near the intersection of Swift and S ear Streets would make this already bad situation far worse (arid this does not event p the hundreds of approved housing units still to be built at South Village). ake into account In addition to exacerbating the existing traffic problem, Spear Meadows would have other major adverse impacts on the neighborhood The proposed density of this project —which we understand is approximately four units per acre — is wildly out of character with the area. This excessive density would negatively impact vegetation light pollution, greatly diminish the aesthetic of the neighborhood�reduceeealreadfaIlenate undue ise and existing home values even more, and could place a serious strain on municipal services SUO, as Police, fire, and snow removal. Daniel is the President of the Swift Estates Association, the homeowners' association for Meadowood Drive. He has already heard from several of our neighbors who oppose Spear Meadows. We plan to attend the October 6th meeting and will look forward to discussingthese issues with you, the Board, and ow neighbors at that time Thank You very ese and consideration. y much for your time Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff ebbie Hernberg October 5, 2009 Development Review Board City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Spear Meadows Development proposal In 1970, on his hit album Tea for the Tillerman, Cat Stevens asked, "Where Do the Children Play"? The same question can be asked of Gary Farrell's proposed 93-unit development planned for Vale Drive and Spear Street. As a resident of Vale Drive, I am shocked such a proposal is planned for our street, where less than 30 houses no -A, exist. Farrell's plan does not call for a playground for the hundreds of children which will live in those units, but instead allows for his extension to encroach upon the recreational right-of-way that separates Vale Drive from Four Sisters Drive, one that the children of both streets enjoy using to play. An additional 93 families more than triples the amount of families and children moving through our road alone. Once the connection is complete, it will be an easy shortcut for non-residents of Vale to use to avoid traffic on Spear and Noy;land Farm reads. The street, which is safe enough for children to ride their bikes, scooters and play ball in, will turn into a high-speed nightmare for families. When we bought our house one year ago, we were aware of the plan for Farrell to develop the field with single-family houses. If we had been told the plans would one day instead be apartments, we would have never considered buying our house just for the quality of life, but for the significant drop in real estate value once Vale becomes a high -traffic zone. I urge you to look closely at this project by spending time on Vale Drive after school or on a weekend. You'll observe children playing together on the street and in their yards without worrying about traffic or dangerous drivers. Then consider the impact of 93 apartment units, those hundreds of other children without a yard to play in, the removal of a portion of our recreational path, and the relentless traffic from both residents and people using it to cut through to Nowland Farm Road. It may have been 1970, but it's still a completely valid question: Well you roll on roads over fresh green grass, for your lorry loads pumping petrol gas, and you make them long and you make them tough, but they just go on and on, and it seems that you can't get off. Oh. I know we're come a long way, we're changing day to day, but tell me where do the children play? Sincerely, -1 vLZUA,/� Nancy Vetters 26 Vale Drive South Rurlingtor, October 3, 2009 Development Review Board City Nall 575 Dorset Street Sr>uth Purlington, Vermont 0540X RE: Spear Meadows Development - Revised proposal You can't squeeze ten pounds of potatoes into a nine pound bag. It r ay Ze cliche bu, the statement describes one of my objections to Gary Farrell's proposed 93-unit development off Spear Road. I urge the Development Review Board to closely L,.c:rutinize the impact such a development would have on local traffic, On any given weekday many residents of Shelburne and South Burlington drive Spear Street on their way to work or school. Who has not been stuck at the corner of Spear and Swift as a line of cars builds to the point where the traffic may not be cleared in a single cycle of a traffic light? Drivers use the street for many purposes - as a path to Interstate 89/189, an alternative to Route 7, a straight run to UVM or part of a zig-zag course to avoid the congestion on Dorset Street. In the end the effect is the same, an increased safety risk for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. The preceding describes current conditions on Spear without the addition of another housing development. Consider the impact of an additional 93-units. Another 200 cars. No change in the width Of Spear Street. My concern is not based solely on increased traffic volume associated with Spear Meadows which is objectionable in and of itself, the proposal is also flawed because of its physical location - too close to the intersection of Spear and Swift. Several hundred feet from the existing bottleneck. Imagine traffic conditions at 7:30 am or 5 pm without any change to the current roadways once another 90 families are seeking to use it along with everybody else. My second traffic objection concerns the proposed change to Vale Drive. The proposal provides for the Spear Meadows development to connect to Vale once 51 units have been constructed. Today, Vale drive is essentially a residential street where drivers may not safely accelerate over 20 to 25 mph. After all, there's a cul-de-sac at one end fed by a narrow street. Vale Drive was constructed with less than 30 homes in mind let alo a possible extension to another 90+ units. The developer's design provides for the ne removal of the cul-de-sac leaving the current street as a "straight run" to IVowland Farms. You do not have to be a civil engineer to conclude :hat drivers will accelerate on the original Vale Drive because its altered layout would permit it. The result would be a less safe road for residents especially children who use the road to play. I've written this letter hoping you will focus attention on the traffic concerns raised b the Spear Meadows project and its negative impact on the duality of life in tho y surrounding neighborhood. Z rncerely, Vic Vetters 26 Vale Drive South Burlington So Burlington Dev. Review Board Attn: John Dinklage Chair Oct. 6, 2009 MY name is Diane Muhr and I have lived at 1408 Spear Street since My land and house will be directly impacted b o p Y Spee ar Meadows. When the plan wasas o originally Presented for 32 units I did not have any resubmitted for 92 units I have major c ncernstions. However, now that it has been First, it does not conform to the rest of the neighborhood development is surrounded b single that density should occur near city center ood that several acro The family homes with 4 to s density. The overall Cit several rerc �r3,rds. I a s but this is not the lace for grcL designatesy plan (appendix E Southeast Quadr nt Goals 4r. plan of this area as Neighbor Density2. r with the existing neighborhood.' Ninety-two units is � this complex is built as planned itNwill ` overwhelm' he surrounding totally atlt of character resider! area has multiunit dwellings. If s> have come to love so much. the character of` the ;E Q that we, as Another factor is that there is not enough common land kids to play or adults to enjoy as sell d that could be used as a park for type of recreational Opportunity.There does not appear to be an ,',_�,;,I ;,Isdiv, except for a recreation path that is mandatory. vision for any lzersonal perspective, I would love to see the area behind rn- house t'rdisturbed. The road to this area has .l vet ate o Ideally, Portion of the develo g over a wetland just to access that existing neighborhood There is also a conspicuous absence of buffers between ' ghborhood and the planned develo the Parts of the SEQ have some sort of buffer i.e. open land Multiunit nit developments in other no provisions for this in Spear Meadows.areaa large berm, 'There are am in agreement that the Farrellany of the 's have a right to develop their land but it seems like the g g about what is acceptable and what is not. to this Property have lived here a long time and feel that the ru allghbors character of the area is going to be lost. It just doesn't seem possible that this kind of development should be allowed with the amount of density proposed. Thank you for reading this letter and hopefully addressing g some of the issues raised Diane Muhr SEQ resident 1408 Spear St. 862-7833 Mr. John Dinklage Planning Department South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows Project Dear John: Please accept this letter in opposition to the Spear Meadows Project in lieu of my physical presence at the Review Board Meeting. Due to business requirements, I am unable to attend in person. I am opposed to the current plan for Spear Meadows for the following reasons: • The original plan that was presented to me consisted of 29 total units. The current plan has expanded three -fold to 93 units. To date we have not been presented any data on this new plan or the impacts it will have on our community. • This density of units completely changes the character of the neighborhood. • The traffic impact onto Spear Street at the intersection of Swift Street will significantly deteriorate an already overcrowded intersection. • The waivers requested to allow phasing of the plan should be denied. The phasing leaves open the possibility of a "half -completed" development not unlike the current situation at South Village on Spear Street at the top of Allen Road. I felt it important to express my views so that my rights to oppose this development are maintained. Thank you. Si rel Richard Tarrant Jr. ..,10 William A. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont October 6, 2009 To the Chair and Members of the South Burlington Design Review Board 25 years ago today, my wife Maurene and I moved into the SEQ at 1400 Spear. One of the oldest residential areas of the City of South Burlington. our home was built in 1904. We have enjoyed our neighborhood and our neighbors throughout this time. Sadly we must now oppose the Permit request of Gary and Jane Farrell and Spear Meadows now before the Design Review Committee. We do so because if allowed the proposed project will fundamentally change the character of this, unique part of South Burlington. We did not oppose the earlier 30 unit plan proposed but not built by the same parties. Density vs. the Impact of Density The 93 unit plan as proposed only supports the interest of the highest possible density. That is unfair to the other interests and it is very unfair to the abutting landowners. The DRB is not required to allow 93 units on this tiny parcel The Comprehensive Plan was intended to result in conserved land and to ensure that there would be open spaces in the SEQ. That part has been accomplished. No matter what the DRB does in this case the land, with regard to the Leduc Farm, is protected. That land is conserved. It cannot be used for other than the restricted uses allowed by the Vermont Land Trust, The Vermont Housing Conservation Land Trust and the United States of America. That land has now been sold to Bread and Butter Farms as a farm and is subject to those restrictions. The issue then is the balance of density vs. impact of density. Development at a density above the base level (1.2 units per acre) is subject to the discretionary approval of the DRB, not an entitlement, and that the DRB should use its discretion to protect the character of area, consistent with density shown in the goals -based plan. All that is left is to decide how much density is appropriate in the area for which the Applicant seeks a permit. We look to the DRB to balance the impact of this exceptional density on the values protected by the Comprehensive Plan and the impact on the affected adjoining land owners. You will hear from many neighbors on that issue. This project is totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and is therefore a bad idea in concept. The current character of the area as existing single-family homes with densities of approximately one unit for every two or three acres and just does not fit Ili with the project as a multifamily apartment development with a density of four units per acre, which is the absolute maximum allowed in the residential sub districts of the Southeast Quadrant. As designed it will appear as an apartment or condo strip mall, with triplex apartments built on a slab. Property values of adjoining properties will decline. The City has never before approved a dense multifamily development in the Southeast Quadrant that is not somehow buffered from the adjoining single-family homes. There is nothing close to 4 units per acre density in the area where we live. Indeed, Mr. Farrell protects his own dwelling from impacts by placing the triplex apartment units well away from his home. This amounts to an acknowledgment of the adverse impact of the density sought. My land will be suddenly surrounded by a 93 unit apartment complex without any amenities. When I asked Eric Farrell at a meeting of adjoining landowners "Where will the kids play, Eric?" His answer was to point to my land abutting the 93 unit development! The proposed plan is also without any buffering lands, with inadequate parking or land on which the owners and family's living in the 93 units can actually live. No Park or open land is provided. Each lot is covered with duplex or triplex apartment building leaving very inadequate side yards or the narrow street in which to be out of doors. Please look at the attached comparison with South Village a development with density that is balanced with conservation and amenities. Traffic and circulation and Parking The narrow streets and the on street parking are inadequate. Picture the streets after a snow storm with a school bus trying to get by. Or a Fire truck. And if it is allowed to be built without the Vale Drive connection then imagine these small narrow streets with on street parking and a school bus trying to get in turn around while picking up kids. There are usually'/s to 3/4 hours when a turn out of my driveway at 1400 Spear is blocked at rush hours. Vale Drive Connection They want a 93 unit permitted Plan now, but they do not want to build a road connection to Vale Drive until they have sold 50 units. Even with the original 29 unit plan a Vale drive connection was required. Consider how a school bus is going to turn around on the proposed very narrow street if it permitted as a dead end. Goals Based Plan The Goals Based Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan The By Laws are said to implement the Comprehensive Plan The Goals Based plan says SEQ-NR can have as few as 2 per acre and as many as 4 per acre depending on where the SEQ-NR land might be The Goals Based Plan shows the Farrell Property to be in the Neighborhood 2 acre area. The By law reference to maximum of 4 acres is consistent... some SEQ-NR can be 4 acres... but to rule that the bylaw requires 4 acre density for All SEQ-NR reads the Goals Based Plan out of the any meaning. To allow 4 units is to ignore the Appendix E Goals Based Plan TDR Phasing The Applicant seeks a 93 unit permitted Plan now but they do not yet have the required number of TDR for 93 units. They only have 56 TDR's and these they do not own, but only have an option. They have not filed the actual option agreement with the DBR or the town or provided it to the parties in this case. The Applicant seeks DBR approval to build the base density 31 unit first and only later actually have to buy the TDR's that are the whole basis for the Project as Proposed. We neighbors and the DBR know what a 29 or 30 unit development would look like. That was approved 3 years ago. If the applicant builds 31 units and cannot afford to buy the TDR's the project will end at 31 units, in a configuration that the DBR would never have allowed if originally proposed. What if they only build 31 units, what will it look like, where would they be sited.... 10 ugly triplexes in a 26 acre field will not meet the planning goals of this area! Conclusion By Law 15.04 provides that The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The Application does not meet this test. We need your good judgment. Sincerely, William A. Gilbert William Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 November 23, 2009 Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Paul, I am concerned about the DRB proceeding last Tuesday November 17th related to the Farrell Project (Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42) and thought it best to just let you know my concern and put my objection on the record. This is a serious problem. Chair Dinklage made an opening presentation describing the Zoning Plan and then refused any questions about his presentation. The Chair said that a private meeting of the DRB with the City Attorney had taken place to discuss the issues that I and others have raised in previous submissions to the DRB. The Chair offered no report on what the City Attorney had advised and did not allow DRB discussion or decision on those issues. (For example, full disclosure of the Option terms for the Development Rights Applicant seeks to apply in this Plan and our request to have the owners of the involved "sending" parcels made parties to this proceeding.) However, the Chair did rule, again without DRB discussion or vote, that the DRB would not discuss the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) or the density issue in relation to the Farrell Application. He also said that the DRB would not take any public comment on the TDR density issue. During the meeting Chair Dinklage cut off discussion of density TDR. I was at a loss why he did this until the very end of the meeting when he admitted that that he did not know or had not read the relevant Zoning Bylaw sections including: .... the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non- contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel... (9.13(C) (2) (Emphasis added) Clearly the Chair, and perhaps other members, either because of the ruling of the Chair or because they too, are misinformed, have also been prohibited from any comment or consideration of the TDR density issue that is at the core of this Application. The 40 or so opponents to this application who were present have a right to attend a sketch review public hearing and to comment on issues that are before the DRB That was denied by the Chair. Basic fairness would require no less. I am not sure if there is a solution. Worse, the Applicant will now erroneously assume that it is entitled to 90 or so units of density as just a mathematical proposition from the TDR density calculation. The Applicant certainly did not receive any sketch Plan guidance on this issue from the DRB. His next plan will probably make that assumption because that is was what the Chair said, TDR's density are not relevant. I would be happy to discuss this with you and or the Chair and do ask that you share this letter with Chair Dinklage and the DRB Members and place it on the record of this proceeding. Sincerely, William A. Gilbert Design Review Board City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vt. 05403 Dear Members of the DRB: D 14 Stonehedge Dr. So. Burlington, Vt. 05403 December 9, 2009 This fall I attended two DRB meetings that had the Farrell at Spear development on the agenda. I came away with many concerns and have listed them below. TRAFFIC: about five years ago there was a meeting at City Hall concerning traffic on Spear Street. I came away from that meeting with the feeling that the city felt as soon as Shelburne Road construction was finished, Spear would be fine. Well getting out from Stonehedge to go north is still a problem and the idea that about 200 more cars will use that road certainly is not going to help. It is unrealistic to think each of Mr. Farrell's units will have just one car. 2. ASTHETICS: The buildings Mr. Farrell hopes to put up are far from beautiful. If you take away the landscaping in his pictures, that is what it will look like for at least twenty years while trees and shrubs mature. I'm probably calling the kettle black but at least Stonehedge is down over the hill where people on Spear don't have to look at the buildings. 3. SNOW: It appears Mr. Farrell believes in global warning which is fortunate as it will be interesting to see where they put the snow if there is an "old fashion winter". 4. STORMWATER: When Stonehedge had a design for treating stormwater done it was estimated it would cost the associations of Stonehedge North, South and Cedar Glen about $750,000. One reason for the high cost is that we not only have to take care of the run off these associations cause but also the water that runs off the land east of Stonehedge and down thru our associations. The stormwater treatment that Mr. Farrell suggests looks very meager for that number of buildings which means wewill have to pay for their runoff too. I certainly hope the DRB and city planners take into account the comments of neighbors and not just rubber stamp this development. Perhaps Mr. Farrell should rename his development "No More Meadow at Spear". Sincerely, J rd� ice �mii'� Roger Fridholarr, ir,.uuer *13-1 Spear Street South Purliugton, V'1'0540.3 Mr. Chuck Hafter City Manager 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Hafter: November 29, 2009 This is to express my concern with the proposed 93 unit Spear Meadows development. I am the owner of the house at 1317 Spear Street, the one with the white picket fence. My driveway is directly opposite the proposed Farrell Project entry. I have previously written to the DRB with my concerns. I do not believe that the zoning ordinance that appears to permit 4 living units per acre through the use of Transferable Development Rights was ever intended to be applied in a neighborhood that is relatively rural on a road carrying a significant amount of through traffic. Recognizing that more housing density may be necessary to provide more affordable housing, our neighborhood did not object to the originally proposed 29 unit development. However, the proposed 93 unit development seems excessive in a neighborhood of single family homes on large lots. It is taking the intent of the TDR concept to the extreme. There is little doubt that a dense development including triplex and duplex units would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and impair the property values of the existing homeowners. I understand that the City Council passes zoning bylaws and relies on the DRB to implement these bylaws. To date however, the DRB is acting as if the density allowed is the density that must be granted, and is failing to balance the design, safety and neighborhood impact mandates that also appear in the zoning bylaw the City Council has passed. I am also concerned with the ingress/egress of any development opposite our driveway. Twenty- nine units would have increased the traffic and risks significantly. Ninety-three units would, in my view, be dangerous and unmanageable. I urge that the City Council suggest to the DRB that it should avoid approving such an extreme application of TDR. Thank you for your consideration. Roger Fridholm r o re, ►W�� �f ~ soul lhudOngi x� ru Charles E. Hafter, City Manager Mr. Roger Fridholm 15840 Lakeview Ct. Grosse Pointe, MI 48230-1865 Dear Mr. Fridhohn: I am in receipt of your letter of November 29, 2009 which expresses your concern with the proposed development of the Farrell Property. I understand your concerns and your neighbors have been very active in representing those concerns to the DRB and to the general public. Under Vermont State Statutes, the Development Review Board (DRB) is established as a "quasi- judicial" body regulated by a separate statute beyond local authority. As such the DRB operates under strict rules of procedure which must be followed. For examples, appeals to a DRB finding and decision are to Vermont Environmental Court rather than to the City Council. Although the City Council appoints and reappoints the members of the DRB, they are not permitted to discuss specific development issues with the DRB or have any ex parte communications. Your request to have the City Council communicate with the DRB would be a violation of this rule. The State has established this "bright line" between elected officials and regulatory ones and the Council has always been careful to respect this line. If the Council or a citizen is concerned about the use of TDR's, they are free to communicate about this to the Planning Commission which regulates the overall comprehensive plan and land development regulations for the City. They would discuss this issue without regard for any specific project and would modify regulations for the entire City. However, as mentioned above, the issues you raise have all been made abundantly clear to the DRB which will take them into consideration in their deliberations. It is important that citizens and interested parties continue to attend the DRB meetings and to communicate their concerns. I will give the City Council a copy of your letter and my reply. Sincerely, (IJ Js, Chuck Hafter City Manager 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www,sburl.com Design Review Board City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vt. 05403 Dear Members of the DRB: D 14 Stonehedge Dr. So. Burlington, Vt. 05403 December 9, 2009 This fall I attended two DRB meetings that had the Farrell at Spear development on the agenda. I came away with many concerns and have listed them below. TRAFFIC: about five years ago there was a meeting at City Hall concerning traffic on Spear Street. I came away from that meeting with the feeling that the city felt as soon as Shelburne Road construction was finished, Spear would be fine. Well getting out from Stonehedge to go north is still a problem and the idea that about 200 more cars will use that road certainly is not going to help. It is unrealistic to think each of Mr. Farrell's units will have just one car. 2. ASTHETICS: The buildings Mr. Farrell hopes to put up are far from beautiful. If you take away the landscaping in his pictures, that is what it will look like for at least twenty years while trees and shrubs mature. I'm probably calling the kettle black but at least Stonehedge is down over the hill where people on Spear don't have to look at the buildings. 3. SNOW: It appears Mr. Farrell believes in global warning which is fortunate as it will be interesting to see where they put the snow if there is an "old fashion winter". 4. STORMWATER: When Stonehedge had a design for treating stormwater done it was estimated it would cost the associations of Stonehedge North, South and Cedar Glen about $750,000. One reason for the high cost is that we not only have to take care of the run off these associations cause but also the water that runs off the land east of Stonehedge and down thru our associations. The stormwater treatment that Mr. Farrell suggests looks very meager for that number of buildings which means wewill have to pay for their runoff too. I certainly hope the DRB and city planners take into account the comments of neighbors and not just rubber stamp this development. Perhaps Mr. Farrell should rename his development "No More Meadow at Spear". Sincerely, October 6, 2009 Design Review Board Members: Mark Behr Matt Birmingham Bill Stuono John Dinklage Roger Farley Eric Knudsen Gayle Quimby Dear Design Review Board Members: We are writing to oppose the Farrell Real Estate proposed development of 92 units in the vicinity of Spear and Swift streets, connecting through Vale Drive. We oppose this new development for a number of reasons. Our first question is why is it needed? The new development further south on Spear Street is nearly vacant, at a time when it seems that houses are not selling and new construction is poorly advised. The proposed development would result in additional traffic at a location that cannot tolerate more. Parking will be needed, more pollution will be generated, and this new development will generate the need for more water pressure, and/or the need for additional upgrades to water pressure that is already low and insufficient for the current neighborhoods. Housing of this density is not needed and clearly out of character for this area. It simply does not fit and will have a negative impact on housing values, parking, traffic flow, air quality, water pressure, and overall negative impact on the environment. Further, it is just not needed. We would suggest the use of this for green space, and suggest that we revisit the goals of development for this area, in light of negative impacts, current recession, and need to preserve at least some open and green areas in South Burlington. We are concerned that our town will become South Burlington, New Jersey, if this development proceeds. What is wrong with some areas not developed and still green? Please stop this before it goes further. Sincerely, Geoff Kr isel 20 Pinnacle Dr. South Burlington, VT October 6, 2009 City of South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 RE: Farrell Real Estate Proposal To Whom It May Concern: My name is Jerry Johnson, and I reside at 51 Pinnacle Drive, South Burlington VT. Due to previous engagements, I am unable to attend the DRB meeting personally, but I give Eric Farrell permission to use this letter as a means to present my position on Farrell Real Estate's proposal. I do not have a problem whatsoever with Farrell Real Estate's proposal to change the original plan, which was for 29 single family homes, to 92 units, (13 triplex, 22 duplex), Si cerely, 'ti Je ohn,son 51 Pinnacle Dr South Burlington VT Z 'd 0960 'ON Aupdwo0 Aoo4 p�ayaano AdSti:Z 6 0 0 Z '9 '1Do David & Linda Young 1402 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 October 6, 2009 Design Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42 We strongly object to the proposed Farrell development known as Spear Meadows for the following reasons: Neighborhood impact — The density of the proposed units far exceeds the current density for the surrounding area; also in question is whether this particular area is zoned for 2 or 4 units per acre. Lack of buffers — Unlike any other multi -unit developments in the area, there are no buffers to protect existing homeowners. Lack of common recreation or "play" areas — There are no proposed areas within the proposed development designated for recreational use or play. With the lack of available space, much of the activity will be forced into the road. Lack of parking — Street parking appears to be the second designated spot for each unit. Further, the width of the road appears to limit emergency vehicle and school bus access and presents challenges for snowplows during the winter months. Residents will be required to find a parking spot for their vehicles when a parking ban is in effect. Traffic/safety issue — Currently we have safety concerns during most morning commutes. The high volume of cars and excessive speed make it difficult - to near impossible to turn either north or southbound onto Spear. Adding another 200 vehicles into this already congested area will be problematic for all. In closing we want you to know that we are in support of property development in South Burlington. However, we feel that the increase in the number of proposed units is excessive and jeopardizes the safety of individuals living in and around the area David Young Linda Young _ Q v-r�,+.c,�� 2e ,I 'tie- 4�i t-� �.-�' � ,�-��`�"L � ►T� C�� lam', C>it rz. o. elft 'u f4' 4-� LC ' . vc, � Lc- � F7�ie- rc+?C) -Z 4ie_ �J140-7 1% uef� Jq-.S c 6 P- -b �(_L{,,.� l,! 55L-L a ra.- cue ► pf- ypLic*-4i ci-) i iLc+> ct� m fA,4-s I e evKr., 1, rNr.> r j CA, p X.= 7 - J I� ,�PUc��. �s nit c-L-�+-nt> sty I,4k.j ,5—T�e, Pam' prt-_�L �lj,�Jh� o,Q D w o vc z , %mod o c vim" ,t ►s �� rn � �� �-�aa-az�i�n��� g1 AJ '7 at Tvzs No W+1 vet #--�o 4) !V, 4 J, p '— David & Linda Young 1402 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 October 6, 2009 Design Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42 We strongly object to the proposed Farrell development known as Spear Meadows for the following reasons: Neighborhood impact — The density of the proposed units far exceeds the current density for the surrounding area; also in question is whether this particular area is zoned for 2 or 4 units per acre. Lack of buffers — Unlike any other multi -unit developments in the area, there are no buffers to protect existing homeowners. back of common recreation or "play" areas — There are no proposed areas within the proposed development designated for recreational use or play. With the lack of available space, much of the activity will be forced into the road. Lack of parking — Street parking appears to be the second designated spot for each unit. Further, the width of the road appears to limit emergency vehicle and school bus access and presents challenges for snowplows during the winter months. Residents will be required to find a parking spot for their vehicles when a parking ban is in effect. Traffic/safety issue — Currently we have safety concerns during most morning commutes. The high volume of cars and excessive speed make it difficult - to near impossible to turn either north or southbound onto Spear. Adding another 200 vehicles into this already congested area will be problematic for all. In closing we want you to know that we are in support of property development in South Burlington. However, we feel that the increase in the number of proposed units is excessive and jeopardizes the safety of individuals living in and around the area :iaa�vidYoun` Linda Young William J. and Tanya Z. Cimonetti 1393 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 802-863-4905 October 6, 2009 Development Review Board City of South Burlington, VT Members; We are the owners of a property located at 1393 Spear Street, abutting the properties involved in the development application for Spear Meadows, 1350 Spear Street. We object to several aspects of the proposed development. We find the density of 93 housing units to be grossly out of context with the existing neighborhood. Only one unit of the proposed PUD, the existing single family home at 1350 Spear is consistent and in harmony with the longstanding development of the surrounding area. The concept of triplex units containing a so-called "flat" above a shared three car garage is totally out of keeping in a neighborhood distinguished for more than fifty years by the graceful creation of single family homes. The proposed PUD would disrupt, not compliment, this residential neighborhood. The design layout of the proposed PUD includes sub -standard width streets with on -street parking, a concept contrary to the development goals of the City. This is not a mixed -use area in South Burlington such as Farrell Drive, but rather is an established residential neighborhood. Narrow streets with on -street parking are completely out of context with the existing residential neighborhood. The lack of any suitable dedicated public space is also contrary to established City plans. The requirement of at least 7.5 acres of public park -like land per 1000 residents has been ignored in the design of the proposed PUD. The failure to include a dedicated off-street recreation path is not only not in keeping with the City development plans and goals, but is an outright repudiation of the requirement proposed by the City's Recreation Path Committee and subsequently established by the Development Review Board in the previous application for development of this site. The developer's desire to provide only one point of ingress/egress to the PUD until the construction of the fiftieth housing unit would create massive traffic impact and impair public safety. The long term impact of the traffic due to ninety-three new housing units upon Vale Drive, Spear Street and Swift Street would be totally unacceptable, and counter to the goals and plans of the Spear Street Corridor Study which has been formally accepted by the City Council. i- . The entire site for Spear Meadows is surrounded by single family homes; it would be unacceptable to insert into the very center of that long-standing residential area a cluster of ninety-three housing units lacking garages, on premise parking, and any usable open public spaces. This application for the Spear Meadows project should be rejected. T�hZ. imonetti Cc: Members City Council City of South Burlington, VT i William J. 'monet r To the City of South Burlington Design Review Board October 6, 2009 From William and Maurene Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont Regarding Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42 The Application should be rejected for the following reasons • The Application contains inaccurate information • The Application is incomplete • The Application lacks required Necessary Parties The City, the DRB and the affected land owners cannot and should not be put through the burdens of a very complicated City zoning procedure where the Application is fatally flawed at the outset. In effect there is no legal Application before the DRB. Notice of Sketch Plan Hearing is required and very specific.... false or inadequate or incomplete information denies the DRB as well as the adjoining landowners of that notice and is a fatal flaw that will render any permit granted to be void. The Application Form itself recites that failure to provide the requested information will result in rejection of the Application. The Application contains inaccurate information The 10/6/2009 Memo of Mr. Eric. Farrell to Mr. Ray Belair relates to "Spear Meadows, 1340-1350 Spear Street". The Memo states that Mr. Eric Farrell is the Applicant and that he is an "Optionee". However, Mr. Eric Farrell has recently admitted that there is no option agreement. The Application is incomplete The Subject Property map identified on the first page of the Staff Memo to the DRB contains 23.54 acres and does not include the 2.99 acres owned by Gary and Jane Farrell and is not signed by Jane Farrell, a record owner of that parcel. In addition to other deficiencies the Applicant has provided none of the required lot coverage information required before consideration of the application can proceed. Instead of submitting the required data it has merely stated "TBD". The Application cannot therefore be considered complete, and must be rejected. The Application lacks required Necessary Parties The proceeding cannot proceed without an Applicant. The Applicant which is defined as the party or parties who own or whose property rights are affected by the proposed Plan must be a part of the Application. The necessary parties to this Subdivision PUD application are not set forth in the notice of sketch plan review. The official notice reads as follows: 5. Sketch plan application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The 10/06/2009 Memo of Mr. Eric Farrell to Mr. Ray Belair mentions only "Spear Meadows, 1340-1350 Spear Street". The property interests of Spear Meadows, Inc. are involved. Other interests are directly involved as well. For example, lands of Gary Farrell and lands of Gary and Jane Farrell are affected and are included on the Plans submitted by the Applicant. The Application is signed only by Gary Farrell and by Eric Farrell. The Applicant has therefore not included the 2.99 acres of lands owned by Gary and Jane Farrell in this Application. The lands from which proposed development rights are to be transferred (the "sending parcel") are also involved [see, By law 9.13 C (1)] However, the sending parcels are not specifically identified as to ownership or location in the Application as required. These transferred rights that involve non-contiguous parcels are central to the consideration of the Plan as submitted by the Applicant and must be reviewed as components of the PUD. Without the participation of these other component "areas affected" as Applicants in the application the Plan cannot be considered. In its prior Act 250 proceeding the Applicant has represented to the Act 250 District Commission that the sending lands are and must be considered "as ""involved lands"" that are connected with the project". Waivers Requested by Applicant Under By law 15.04 only the waivers and other relief requested may be addressed or granted. If the Applicant does not have a stated request for a waiver or relief it is not able to be waived and any grant of waiver not requested is not authorized. The Applicant has requested significant waiver relief in the Application as filed. By law 15.04 B requires B. Statement of requested waivers required for PUDs. Any applicant utilizing PUD review must provide a list of waivers and other relief sought through PUD review from the strict dimensional standards, subdivision standards, site plan review standards, or other applicable provisions of these Regulations. The only stated waivers and requests for relief in the Application are as follows: • Delay of the transfer of Development Rights until they build the project up to and including the 31 st unit (base density), prior to having to actually purchase and transfer additional density to the project site. • Plan approval for 93 units without the full number of TDR required. • Delay of Vale Drive connection until the completion of the 50th unit By the TDR delay waiver requested the Applicant is seeking a 93 unit Permit also asks to be permitted in this proceeding to possibly build a 30 unit project, or maybe a 50 unit 2 project, (the Vale Drive delay waiver) without filing any specific or detailed application for such smaller project as required by the laws and by-laws of South Burlington. TDR Waivers Applicant seeks approval of a 93 unit plan... and has applied for a 93 unit plan. The DRB cannot (and certainly should not) allow this Application to go forward where what is really being asked is a blank check approval for somewhere between 30 and 87 units of density under an Application stating it seeks 93 Units of density. Applicant asks for 2 waivers that if granted will approve a delay of TDR waiver that amounts to a 30 unit plan if for any reason the Applicant wants to stop at 30 units or 50 units or anything in between. Moreover the "Notice of Option" states that Applicant obtained from Leduc for the TDR says specifically that he has an option (for 4 years from February 2009) to purchase a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 56 units of density. Added to his claimed 31 units allowed density without TDR relief the Applicant claims only the capacity to build 87 units but applies for 93 units! (Note: The Option itself is a secret and has not been disclosed to the City or to concerned adjoining landowners.) The undersigned requests that the DRB rule that the Applicant make available the actual option referred to in the option notice within 5 days to all parties and to the City. The DRB does not have the authority to grant a waiver on the TDR transfer. It must occur prior to PUD approval, and must be a part of the Application. In addition, under State Law the rights transferred must appear on "a map of areas from which development rights have been severed" maintained by the municipality. According to Mr. Belair there is no such City Development Rights Map. The option notice is not an option. It is not a conveyance. It is not a deed. The option remains a secret. Under State law there must exist a deeded right not an option. No zoning permit may be granted until "all" the State mandated requirements are met. Finally, State law mandates that municipal bylaws containing provisions for the transfer of development rights must formally define the term, "development rights," and such definition at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry." 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a) (5) The City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted May 12, 2003, with amendments effective as of January 5, 2009, does not provide a definition of "development rights." Therefore, the DRB does not have authority to approve the proposed TDR transfer. Therefore the requested TDR waiver cannot be granted. Simply stated the City and the DRB have no authority under State Law to grant this request and the Application must be dismissed. 3 Number of Units The application must state the number of units allowed and the Plan must follow that designated number. Here the Applicant specifically seeks to have 93 dwelling units approved, but then the Sketch Plan Application speaks of creating "smaller or larger homes". Therefore the Application must be rejected. The 2-story homes (front and rear) will vary in size from 1,400 — 1,900 sf and typically contain 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The carriage house units will vary in size from 1,000 — 1,250 sf and typically contain 1 or 2 bedrooms and 1 or 2 baths. The creative design of the buildings offers infinite opportunities to shift square footage between units, so as to create smaller or larger homes. (from the Application Memo Emphasis added) Goals Based Plan - Appendix E to Comprehensive Plan The Goal Based Plan shows different residential densities for developable areas of the Southeast Quadrant. Under The Goal Based Plan allowed density within the SEQ-NR District range from 2 units to 4 units per acre. The City Goals Based Plan establishes a 2 acre standard for the Spear Meadows parcel. The DRB must give effect to and attempt to implement the City Comprehensive Plan in making it decisions in this matter. The Goals Based Plan cannot be ignored as Applicant appears to request. Under the TDR rules the DRB "may" allow TDR and thereby permit density increases not to exceed 4 units per acre in SEQ-NR District, but only in those portions of the SEQ- NR District identified as 4 units per acre on the Goals Based Plan. 4 Units per acre is a limit on density, but it is not a mandate of required 4 units per acre density everywhere in the SEQ-NR District. On The Goal Based Plan part of the Farrell property is shown as "Neighborhood Density 2;" part is shown as not being a developable area. The Neighborhood Density 2 designation appears in the Comprehensive Plan and must control. The Farrell project would contradict the planning goal indicated by this designation. Wetlands are not permitted to "receive" Development Rights Under State and City law Development Rights may only be sent to "Receiving" parcels. The Applicant seeks to have the DRB accept as "Receiving parcels" several wetland acres of the Farrell Applicant parcel that are not and cannot be developed at all. Applicant then seeks to move these TDR's to the other part of his parcel to thereby increase density. TDR's cannot be "twice removed" in this fashion. Vale Drive Connection The Applicant should be required to construct the Vale Drive connection at the commencement of construction. The intensity of the density of units proposed coupled with the very narrow street configuration and extended construction period build out until 2015 requires immediate Vale Connection as a matter of safety, public service fire and police access and common sense. Even with the original 29 unit plan a Vale drive connection was required. Consider how a school bus is going to turn around on the proposed very narrow street if it permitted as a dead end. n Information Request There is herby requested that the DRB order the Applicant to provide to the DRB and all parties to this proceeding a copy of the actual option agreements that Applicant claims to exist for the acquisition of the Development Rights that are integral to the requested density approvals. 5 South Village Data Spear Meadows Data 334 units on 220 acres 93 units on 26 acres Traditional Neighborhood Development Checklist Farrell Density 93 units on 26 acres (6 times the density as South Village) PUD Acreage -- 12% of acreage of South Village 4 units density per acre Spear Meadows -- 1.5 units per acre at South Village Basement — None (35 buildings on slab) Open Space -- None Farm lands -- None Recreational uses -- None Other land uses than duplex, triplex apartments and roads -- None Narrow Streets -- yes Trails — None Parks — None From South Village Website What do Traditional Neighborhood Developments look like? While they are not all the same, they tend to have strong defining characteristics in common. TND's have a compact pattern to promote efficient land use; Open spaces and natural areas are protected The streets are designed on a grid -like pattern; they are generally narrower than those found in typical suburban neighborhoods. They are intentionally designed to reduce vehicle speeds and improve the environment for humans. The pedestrian experience is further enhanced through a network of continuous sidewalks, trails, and parks. TND's usually contain several land uses. Some communities include retail and office uses. South Village expects to include agricultural, educational and recreational uses. TND's have a wide variety of housing types and a range of prices to accommodate the needs of a broad range of residents. The architecture of the individual homes is derived from, respects, and celebrates local building traditions of the region. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E — Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Plan APPENDIX E SOUTHEAST QUADRANT GOALS BASED PLAN South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Effective March 9, 2006 216 William A. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont October 6, 2009 To the Chair and Members of the South Burlington Design Review Board 25 years ago today, my wife Maurene and I moved into the SEQ at 1400 Spear. One of the oldest residential areas of the City of South Burlington. our home was built in 1904. We have enjoyed our neighborhood and our neighbors throughout this time. Sadly we must now oppose the Permit request of Gary and Jane Farrell and Spear Meadows now before the Design Review Committee. We do so because if allowed the proposed project will fundamentally change the character of this, unique part of South Burlington. We did not oppose the earlier 30 unit plan proposed but not built by the same parties. Density vs. the Impact of Density The 93 unit plan as proposed only supports the interest of the highest possible density. That is unfair to the other interests and it is very unfair to the abutting landowners. The DRB is not required to allow 93 units on this tiny parcel The Comprehensive Plan was intended to result in conserved land and to ensure that there would be open spaces in the SEQ. That part has been accomplished. No matter what the DRB does in this case the land, with regard to the Leduc Farm, is protected. That land is conserved. It cannot be used for other than the restricted uses allowed by the Vermont Land Trust, The Vermont Housing Conservation Land Trust and the United States of America. That land has now been sold to Bread and Butter Farms as a farm and is subject to those restrictions. The issue then is the balance of density vs. impact of density. Development at a density above the base level (1.2 units per acre) is subject to the discretionary approval of the DRB, not an entitlement, and that the DRB should use its discretion to protect the character of area, consistent with density shown in the goals -based plan. All that is left is to decide how much density is appropriate in the area for which the Applicant seeks a permit. We look to the DRB to balance the impact of this exceptional density on the values protected by the Comprehensive Plan and the impact on the affected adjoining land owners. You will hear from many neighbors on that issue. This project is totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and is therefore a bad idea in concept. The current character of the area as existing single-family homes with densities of approximately one unit for every two or three acres and just does not fit with the project as a multifamily apartment development with a density of four units per acre, which is the absolute maximum allowed in the residential sub districts of the Southeast Quadrant. As designed it will appear as an apartment or condo strip mall, with triplex apartments built on a slab. Property values of adjoining properties will decline. The City has never before approved a dense multifamily development in the Southeast Quadrant that is not somehow buffered from the adjoining single-family homes. There is nothing close to 4 units per acre density in the area where we live. Indeed, Mr. Farrell protects his own dwelling from impacts by placing the triplex apartment units well away from his home. This amounts to an acknowledgment of the adverse impact of the density sought. My land will be suddenly surrounded by a 93 unit apartment complex without any amenities. When I asked Eric Farrell at a meeting of adjoining landowners "Where will the kids play, Eric?" His answer was to point to my land abutting the 93 unit development! The proposed plan is also without any buffering lands, with inadequate parking or land on which the owners and family's living in the 93 units can actually live. No Park or open land is provided. Each lot is covered with duplex or triplex apartment building leaving very inadequate side yards or the narrow street in which to be out of doors. Please look at the attached comparison with South Village a development with density that is balanced with conservation and amenities. Traffic and circulation and Parking The narrow streets and the on street parking are inadequate. Picture the streets after a snow storm with a school bus trying to get by. Or a Fire truck. And if it is allowed to be built without the Vale Drive connection then imagine these small narrow streets with on street parking and a school bus trying to get in turn around while picking up kids. There are usually '/2 to 3/a hours when a turn out of my driveway at 1400 Spear is blocked at rush hours. Vale Drive Connection They want a 93 unit permitted Plan now, but they do not want to build a road connection to Vale Drive until they have sold 50 units. Even with the original 29 unit plan a Vale drive connection was required. Consider how a school bus is going to turn around on the proposed very narrow street if it permitted as a dead end. Goals Based Plan The Goals Based Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan The By Laws are said to implement the Comprehensive Plan The Goals Based plan says SEQ-NR can have as few as 2 per acre and as many as 4 per acre depending on where the SEQ-NR land might be The Goals Based Plan shows the Farrell Property to be in the Neighborhood 2 acre area. The By law reference to maximum of 4 acres is consistent... some SEQ-NR can be 4 acres... but to rule that the bylaw requires 4 acre density for All SEQ-NR reads the Goals Based Plan out of the any meaning. To allow 4 units is to ignore the Appendix E Goals Based Plan TDR Phasing The Applicant seeks a 93 unit permitted Plan now but they do not yet have the required number of TDR for 93 units. They only have 56 TDR's and these they do not own, but only have an option. They have not filed the actual option agreement with the DBR or the town or provided it to the parties in this case. The Applicant seeks DBR approval to build the base density 31 unit first and only later actually have to buy the TDR's that are the whole basis for the Project as Proposed. We neighbors and the DBR know what a 29 or 30 unit development would look like. That was approved 3 years ago. If the applicant builds 31 units and cannot afford to buy the TDR's the project will end at 31 units, in a configuration that the DBR would never have allowed if originally proposed. What if they only build 31 units, what will it look like, where would they be sited.... 10 ugly triplexes in a 26 acre field will not meet the planning goals of this area! Conclusion By Law 15.04 provides that The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The Application does not meet this test. We need your good judgment. Sincerely, William A. Gilbert / " John Dinklage, Chairman Development Review Board, 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, Vt 05403 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 October 2, 2009 Re: Farrell D velopme �IDear John: I'm writing to express my strong opposition, as an abutter. to the latest Spear Meadows proposal i will try to be brief and focused, as I'm sure you are inundated -Mth paperwork. First, iet me acknowledge that the DRB maintains a heavy work schedule, aad I --:ommend and thank all those members who volunteer for this important committee. As you well know, the Farrells received approval from the D" for a developm-111 including 31 single family units nearly 4 years ago, but they were stopped at the Act 250 hearings due to Prime Agricultural Soils issues. They have subsequently proposed a development including duplex and triplex buildings, essentially an apartm mt ^omplex, totaling an unbelievable 93 units. They justify this on the basis of TranRfer Dc-elcpment Rights for which they have a purchase option from. the Leduc family. The TDR concept has some appeal, permitting hi gher density housing in select areas, knowledge, there have not yet be while ensuring land preservation in others. To my kn any developments yet in South Burlington, certainly none on the scale proposed by e Farrell, employing TDR's. Approval of this proposal in anything close to its present form, would be a disastrous precedent for our City, and open it to justified bitter criticism for years to come. During the DRB hearings for the prior Farrell proposal, the neighbors argued that the development was grossly incompatible with the 3 to 5 acre properties to the west (Spear St.) and east ( Skiffs, Grabowskis and Meadowood Drive, with Scollins and Kleh abutting). The DRB inexplicably disagreed, reasoning that the proposed development was similar to Pinnacle at Spear to the South. The present proposal is grossly incompatible with ANY of these properties. I am incredulous that the staff comments on this proposal focus on unit density and don't even mention that the development would be GROSSLY incompatible with ALL adjacent neighborhoods, and I urge you to look carefully at this aspect. I would respectfully remind the DRB that almost all the neighbors to the east and west have been tax -paying residents for 30 years or more, and chose their homes because they wanted to live in the country, and were assured when they purchased their sites by the City that at most 2 houses could be built in that field (zoned at one house per 10 acres). When the area was rezoned about 15 years ago, we objected, but were assured that the DRB would be constituted to address subsequent development proposals to determine how they fit with the zoning laws AND with adjacent properties. I feel the Board let down these neighbors 4 years ago, and that to support the present proposal, would constitute a gross betrayal. Essentially, the Board would have supported 93 families, most of whom don't even live in our City now, at the expense of its long-term residents. This gross incompatibility with adjacent homes and neighborhoods should be sufficient to dismiss the Farrell proposal, but I will add many further objections. At the time of the initial proposal about 6 years ago, I wrote to Gary Farrell, on behalf of many neighbors, to convey UVMs strong interest in the land, as it adjoined their farm property at the southeast corner of Spear and Swift Streets. I suggested that we have a dialogue to discuss the *possibility of our purchasing the property and deeding it to i TVM. Garr chose not to even respond to the letter; that the DRB showed no inter%Z in facilitating such a dialogue, or was impotent to do so, was a great disappointment to us. When Tom Kleh and I first learned of the initial plan to develop the field, we offered t+ provide access via the east -west path between our yards, for the recreation path to connect between the new development and Meadowood Drive. At that time we anticipated that the DRB process would result in a project compatible with the neighbors, perhaps a maximum of 12 single family dwellings. In our judgment the fact that the zoning laws ALLOWED a maximum of 1.2 units per acre for a total buildout of 31 uryits, did not require that the DRB GRANT that full density. When our spouses and neighbors. saw the final plan, given security and privacy considerations, and the unwillingnessf Farrells to communicate with us, we withdrew our offer for the recreation pa We ch support the concept of interconnectivity of neighborhoods, but we did not feel that the behavior of the Farrells or, for that matter, that of the DRB, justified our cooperation at this point. Should the DRB decide to revise approval to a more tasteful and compatible development, we would be willing to reconsider. It is worth noting that during the discussions several years ago, it was made clear to Eric that the recreation path belonged, and would be placed, immediately along the eastern boundary of the property. He has nevertheless suggested different siting, obviously to allow more buildings to be squeezed in. I've discussed this with Bill Cimonetti of the Rec Path Committee, who shares my recollection and position. The neighbors in Pinnacle at Spear have an additional reason to be incensed. Most of them had no idea that the cul-de-sac at the northern end of their development represented a future right-of-way, and John Dinklage's suggestion that they should have known because it was included in the town's master plan isn't persuasive. Indeed, I've met 2 realtors who actually pursued sale of the lot(s) on that cul-de-sac, only to subsequently learn of the right of way. I subsequently wrote to Chuck Hafter and strongly suggested that a sign be posted at such future rights of way, indicating the fact, but this has not been done (see his response to me dated 4/9/04). Traffic impact on Spear Street is another obvious issue. Even the previously approved 31 units would have an obvious impact, but anything approaching 93 units would pose serious ingress and egress considerations. This development as proposed is not only an affront to all the neighbors, but to the City itself. This land serves as the de facto window to our southeast quadrant. This project clearly does not belong in that location. The proposal is essentially a "hail Mary pass" by the Farrells to optimize profit, at the expense of the neighbors AND the City. In your deliberations, please remember that you represent the neighbors' interests, and those of the City, as well as those of the developer. Respectfully, I Michael J.Sc to fins RICK HUBBARD 1317 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403-7404 Phone 802-864-3330 E-Mail: rick(axickhubbard.or October 5, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Comments from adjoining property owner at 1317 Spear St. regarding Spear Meadows Sketch Plan application #SO-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwelling;:, and 3) constructing 22 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. Greetings: I am the resident at 1317 Spear Street in South Burlington and am an authorized agent of the property owner (See attached authorization) St. Clair Group, Inc. In addition to points being raised by other abutters in regard to the revised Spear Meadows application I'd like to submit for the record the following comments and observations. An original of this letter is being mailed to the above address and it is also being sent in advance by e-mail with several cc's. Roger Fridholm, President of the St. Clair Group, Inc. may wish to submit additional comment on this project. Intersection cr eninizat 1317 S ear Street. The property at 1317 Spear Street is located directly west of and across from the proposed Spear Meadows Development's primary highway access onto Spear Street. Thus, during night-time, every car exiting the development onto Spear Street will briefly stop with their headlights pointed directly at this house and its east facing bedrooms and other rooms, prior to turning either north or south onto Spear Street. g For this reason, the developer and the 1317 Spear Street property owner have entered into an Agreement Burlington. This agreement provides for landscaping and a screening plin connection with their final plat application #SD-05-96 of Spear Meadows LLC to the City of South an to mitigate the headlight problem. I would like to have this agreement and its effective completion entered as a condition of an Development Review Board Approval. y �� �.�� � �� w�eaaows Intersection with S ear Street I'd recommend the Board of Adjustment require that current landscape plans for Spear Street road width widening and a large earth berm and stone wall construction in front of the G g L7 and C 1.8) be changed to adequately include and reflect oth any required paved turn lanome (See es us a pa 6'wide shoulder on both sides of Spear Street along the entire Spear Meadows property fronting Spear ear Street. This is consistent with recommendations of the 2004 Spear Street Corridor Study Plan which was contracted for, received and studied, and after public review, approved and endorsed by our City Council That study called for street improvements to include the construction of adequate, safe edes cycling lanes on both the east and west shoulders of the street. p trian and At present it's not clear the Spear Meadows plans allow for this on the east side of Spear Street and it wil be both difficult and expensive to redesign and rebuild and re -landscape the berm and wall in the future if 1 this is not anticipated now. e Spear Street is the primary and preferred route for bicyclist heading south out of both Burling ton and South Burlington and for returning bicyclists. Hundreds pass by most days from early spring through late fall and many continue to bicycle in winter. No other South Burlington through street seems to carry as much bicycle traffic mixed in with motorists. For the most part, southbound bicyclists on Spear Street have a 5-6 foot paved shoulder to ride on which separates them from southbound motorists and provides reasonable safety. However, ncrthbound cyclists for the most part have iio adequate paved show dcr at all and thus must ride in the travel lane with motorists. This is extremely dangerous for both bicyclists and motorists, which translates over time into a higher likelihood of periodic accidents and injuries with even the possibility of a death. My own experience is that approximately 8 out of 10 motorists will pass dangerously when overtaking northbound bicyclist on Spear Street when there is also oncoming traffic t}vat will, without an adjustment of motorist speed, result in a dangerous 3 abreast "brush by" of the bicyclist without the 4' of separation between the right -most part of the vehicle (side view mirror) and the leftmost part of the bicyclist n (handlebar or mirror) as recommended by the League of American Bicyclists for nlot 21 ists overtaking g I serve on the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee and installation of shoulder for bicyclists along the entire east side of Spear Street is the Committees h gh st near e and tom road paved reconstruction priority to improve bicycling and motorist safety in South Burlington. This priority road recommendation was adopted by the Committee in January of 2009 and presented to the South Burlington City Council in May of 2009. A copy of this letter is attached. - --- �--_ =��1�� cnce for 1317 S ear Street Pro er . In the spiral bound Spear Meadows Presentation the very first sheet (not numbered) titled Spear Meadows 12/5/2005 Final Plan Submittal, the title reference for 1317 Spear Street is improperly labeled as the Consuela Bailey Estate c/o L Hacket 1640-01350. Title to this property had already been transferred to the St. Clair Group, Inc. at that time. The St. Clair Group, Inc. remains the current property owner. Your attention in this matter. Agent for the St. Clair Group, Inc. January 2009 MEMORANDUM kChh 0 Py SUBJECT: SOUTH BURLINGTON'S SPEAR STREET CORRIDOR ADOPTED January, 2009; Presented May, 2009. TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CC: CHUCK HAFTER The importance of the Spear Street Corridor, a "class 2 town highway" connecting US 2 Williston at UVM) to Shelburne and municipalities south of South Burlington, to vehicle conanuters and Road recreational users is well known and demonstrated. South Burlington contracted for, received and studie and after public review, approve;d and endorsed the Spear- Street Corridor Study in 2004. That stud c d, y for street improvements to include the construction of adequate, safe, pedestrian and eyelid ad both lanes alleh the east and west shoulders of the street. The Recreation Path Committee urges the City Council to plans to bring the vision of this study to fruition. adopt Spear Street is an attractive and popular street for recreational cycling, walking, roller skiin and o typical bike and ped. recreational uses. It also has bey g� ther become an increasingly popular bicycle commuting route. It is unlikely that any other street in the City of South Burlington enjoys t; rnucl: bicycle traffic. The Spear Street right of way is adequate to support eleven or twelve foot carriage ways and substantial multi -use shoulder lanes. In the 1990's a minor widening of the street from Swift Street south to Allen six Road, coupled with a shifting of the painted center line, allowed for the construction of a nominallyen foot wide recreational lane on the west side of the street between UVM and the Shelburne town lin e. In 2008 South Burlington redirected funds planned for the substantial paving upgrade of Spear Street paving Dorset Street between Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. South Burlington did, n 2008 con to for the "shim coat" paving of the most deteriorated portions of Spear, that north of Swift Street. These sometime in the future. tract were welcome improvements. The need to repave all of Spear Street remains, but is scheduled now to be The Recreation Path Committee proposes to the City Council that within the City's Capital improvement and Expenditure Plan a Spear Street Corridor Plan be created, scheduled, funded, and implemented. Such a plan would include all those improvements necessary to create two, adequate and safe, bike and Such lanes for the full length of the street, joining the lanes currently being constructed on Spear Street ped. in Shelburne. The Rec. Path Committee further proposes that recreation impact fees generated by the development of SouthPointe, South Village, and any other development on or adjacent to Spear et designated to be used in accomplishing the Spear Street Corridor Study Plan. The Committee wouldbe heartily support any plans for incremental construction to prepare for the building of the easterly shoulder path on Spear. South Bur&gton Wfcreationafftth Committee St. Clair group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Grosse Pointe, MI 48230 May 16, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: This letter authorizes Richard M. "Rick" Hubbard to represent St. Clair Group, Inc., the owner of property at 1317 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont in discussions regarding the proposed "Spear Meadows -Farrell — 20 LotSubdivision" and the addition of a left turn lane on Spear Street approximately opposite our 1317 Spear Street property. Mr. Hubbard currently leases `he 1 317 Spear St. property from the St. Clair Group. In connection with the above, this letter of authorization is intended to include, but not be limited to, discussions on our behalf bet\, een Mr. Hubbard and the developer of Spear Meadows and its consultants, the City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning, the Development Review Board and the Department of Public Works. Sincerely, St. Clair Group, Inch By. R ,Vr Fridholm, President So Burlington Dev. Review Board AWL John Dinklage Chair Oct. 6, 2009. My'name is Diane Muhr and I have lived at 1408 Spear Street since 1987. M land house will be directly impacted by Spear Meadows. When the plan was originallyd and Presented for 32 units I did not have any objections. However, now that it has been resubmitted for 92 units I have major concerns. First, it does not conform to the rest of the neighborhood that surrounds it. The development is surrounded by single family homes with '/a to several acre yards. 1 agree that density should occur near city centers but this is not the place for that amount of density. The overall City plan (appendix E Southeast Quadrant Goals Bas--d Plan) designates this area as Neighbor Density 2. Ninety-two units is totally out of character with the existing neighborhood. None of the surrounding area has multiunit dwellings. I this complex is built as planned it will "overwhelm" the character of the SEQ that we, as residents, have come to love so much. Another factor is that there is not enough common land that could be used as a park for kids to play at adults to enjoy as well. There does not appear to be any provision for any type of recreational opportunity except for a recreation path that is mandator 1. Ideally, from my personal perspective, I would love to see the area behind my house left undisturbed. The road to this area has to navigate over a wetland just to access that Portion of the development. There is also a conspicuous absence of buffers between the existing neighborhood and the planned development. Multiunit developments in other parts of the 'SEQ have some sort of buffer i.e. open land area or a large berm. There are no provisions for this in Spear Meadows. I am in agreement that the Farrell's have a right to develop their land but it seems like the 'Wes" keep changing about what is acceptable and what is not. Many of the neighbors living adjacent to this property have lived here a long time and feel that the rural character of the area is going to be lost. It just doesn't seem possible that this kind of development should be allowed with the amount of density proposed. Thank you for reading this letter and hopefully addressing some of the issues raised above. Diane Muhr SEQ resident 1408 Spear St. 862-7833 Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John, I'm writing mainly to express my concern about and opposition to the "Spear Meadows" development project. My principle concern is the increased traffic on Spear and Swift Streets which is a problem for us here on Meadowood Drive even now bltt there are also a myriad of other problems that come with such high density. Y I also take this opportunity to thank you for your significant and long standing service to the community of South Burlington. Sincerely, Jack Gersbach 213 Meadowood Drive South Burlington Daniel & SPit g Debbie Nernberg 210 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403-7401 (802) 865-522 1 VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: "Spear Meadows" Development 1 Dear Mr. Dinklage: October 2, 2009 We write to express opposition to the proposed "Spear Meadows" development, which is on the Development Review Board's agenda for the October 6th meeting. We live on Meadowood Drive, which is around the corner from the Spear Meadows site. Vehicular traffic on Swift and Spear Streets is already excessive, as well as dangerous for cyclists. Adding ninety-three additional housing units near the dangintererous for Pection destrians, S am joggers gge s and Streets would make this already bad situatio,,. far worse (and this does not even take into account ount the hundreds of approved housing units still to be built at South Village). In addition to exacerbating the existing traffic problem, Spea.1. Meadows would ha other major adverse impacts on the neighborhood- The Proposedve hich we understand is approximately four units per acre — is wildly out of character the areproject — a. This excessive density would negatively impact vegetation and wildlife, create undue noise and light pollution, greatly diminish the aesthetics of the neighborhood, reduce already -fallen police, fire, and snow removal. services existing home values even more, and could place a serious strain on municipal svices such as Daniel is the President of the Swift Estates Association, the homeowners' association for Meadowood Drive. He has already heard from several of our neighbors who oppose Spear Meadows. We plan to attend the October 6th meet- p issues with you, the Board, and our neighbors at that Ig�� will look fO �d to discussing these and consideration. You v much for your time Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff A,vh Debbie Hernberg October 5, 2009 Development Review Board City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Spear Meadows Development proposal In 1970, on his hit album Tea for the Tillerman, Cat Stevens asked, ``Where ?)F, Me Children Play"? Th same question can be asked of Gary Farrell's proposed 93-;pit development planned for Vale Drive and Spear Street. As a resident J :'ale Drive, I am shocked such a proposal is planned for our street, where less than 30 houses now exist. Farrell's plan does not call for a playgrougd for the hundreds of children which will live in those units, but instead allows for his extension to encroach upon the recreational right-of-way that separates Vale Drive from Four Sisters Drive, olie that the children of both streets enjoy using to play. An additional 93 families more than triples the amount of families and children moving through our road alone. Once the connection is <.omplete, it wil! be an easy shortcut for non-residents of Vale to use to avoid traffic on Spear and Nowlanl Farm roads. The street, which is safe enougl: for children to ride their, 13ikc;:, scooters and play ball in, will turn into a high-speed nightmare for families. When we bought our house one year ago, we were aware of the plan for Farrell to develop the field with single-family houses. If we had been told the plans would one day instead be apartments, we would have never considered buying our house.._ just for the quality of life, but for the significant drop in real estate value once Vale becomes a high -traffic zone. I urge you to look closely at this project by spending time on Vale Drive after school or on a weekend. You'll observe children playing together on the street and in their yards without worrying about traffic or dangerous drivers. Then consider the impact of 93 apartment units, those hundreds of other children without a yard to play in, the removal of a portion of our recreational path, and the relentless traffic from both residents and people using it to cut through to Nowland Farm Road. It may have been 1970, but it's still a completely valid question: Well you roll on roads over fresh green grass, for your lorry loads pumping petrol gas, and you make them long and you make them tough, but they just go on and on, and it seems that you can't get off. Oh. I know we've come along way, we're changing day to day, but tell me where do the children play? Sincerely, Nancy Vetters 26 Vale .Drive Snpjth Bndington Oc laber 3, 2009 Development Review Board City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Rurlington, Vermont 0540X RE: Spear Meadows Development - Revised proposal You can't squeeze ten pounds of potatoes into a nine pound bag. It may "e cliche but the statement describes one of my objections to Gary Farrell's proposed 93-un;r development off Spear Road. I urge the Development Review Board tc .^basely sr''u uFnize the impact Stich o development would have on local traffc. On any given weekday many residents of Shelburne (And South Burlington drive Spear Street on their way to work or school. Who has not been stuck at the corner of Spear and Swift as a line of cars builds to the point where the traffic may not be cleared in a single cycle of a traffic light? Drivers use the street for man y purposes s interstate 89/189, an alternative to Route 7, a straight run to UVM or par_ of a pig haoJ course to avoid the congestion on Dorset Street. In the end the effect is the same, an increased safety risk for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. The preceding describes current conditions on Spear without the addition of another housing development. Consider the impact of an additional 93-units. Another 200 cars. No change in the width of Spear Street. My concern is not based solely on increased traffic volume associated with Spear Meadows which is objectionable in and of itself, the proposal is also flawed because of its physical location - too close to the intersection of Spear and Swift. Several hundred feet from the existing bottleneck. imagine traffic conditions at 7:30 a or 5 pm without any change to the current roadways once another 90 families are m seeking to use it along with everybody else. My second traffic objection concerns the proposed change to Vale Drive. The proposal been constructed. Today, Vale drive is essentially a residential street where provides for the Spear Meadows development to connect to Vale once 51 units have drivers m not safely accelerate over 20 to 25 mph. After all, there's a cul-de-sac at on ay e end fed by a narrow street. Vale Drive was constructed with less than 30 homes in mind let alone a possible extension to another 90+ units. The developer's design provides for the removal of the cul-de-sac leaving the current street as a "straight run" to Nowland Farms. You do not have to be a civil engineer to conclude that drivers will accelerate on the original Vale Drive because Its altered layout would permit it. The result would be a less safe road for residents especially children who use the road to play. I've written this letter hoping you will focus attention on the traffic concerns raised by the Spear Meadows project and its negative impact on the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Vic Vetters ?b Vale Drive South Burlington 3o Burlington Dev. Review Board Attn: John Dinklage Chair Oct. 6, 2009 My name is Diane Muhr and I have lived at 1408 Spear fuse will be directly impacted by Spear presented for 32 units I did not have an objectionsP Street since 1987. M P Meadows, When the plan was Originally d and r4submitted for 92 units I have major concerns. . However, now that it has been First, it does not conform to the rest of the n kvelopment is surrounded b neighborhood that surrou:tds it. The that densit•, r single family homes with % to several acre• ;,arils. I _ > s should occur near city centers but this is not the lace c=�nsity. i he overall CityagrcL rksi Plan (appendix E Southeast P fo..::l at amount of gnat„w this area as Neighbor Density2. Quadrant Goals . Based Plan) with -the existing neighborhood. Ninety-two units is totally out of character Ws complex is built as l None of theinety surrounding residents Planned it will "overwhelm" the character of the SEt dwellings. If have come to love so .much. Q that. wt. as Another factor is that there is not enough common land t kids to play or adults to en o that could be used as a t of recreational o 'i y as well. There does not a Park for t►cr7 {,, pPortunity except for a recreation path that s mandatory. lzersonal Perspective, I would love to see the area b ndatoany provision .for u^v rr�isturbed. The road to this area has to navi at behind my house left deafly,' portion of the development. There is also a co e over a wetland just to access that existing neighborhood and the 1 nspicuous absence of buffers between the Parts of the SE Panned development. Multiunit develo Q have some sort of buffer i.e. open land area or a tar Pments in other no provisions for this in Spear Meadows. large berm. There are I am in agreement that the F "rules" keep well's have a right to develop their land but it seems like p changing about what is acceptable living adjacent to this Property P and What is not. the character of the area is going ohave be lived here a longtime Many of the neighbors development should be allowed with the am and feel that the rural Just doesn't seem possible that this kind of amount of density proposed. Thank you for reading this letter and hopefully addressing ing some of the issues raised Diane Mohr SEQ resident 1408 Spear St. 862-7833 Mr. John Dinklage Planning Department South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows Project Dear John: Please accept this letter in opposition to the Spear Meadows Project in lieu of my physical presence at the Review Board Meeting. Due to business requirements, I am unable to attend in person. I am opposed to the current plan for Spear Meadows for the following reasons: • The original plan that was presented to me consisted of 29 total units. The been presented any data on this new placurrent plan has expanded three -fold to 93 units. To date we have nJt our community. n or the impacts it will have on • This density of units completely changes the character of the neighborhood. • The traffic impact onto Spear Street at the intersection of Swift Street will significantly deteriorate an already overcrowded intersection. • The waivers requested to allow phasing of the plan should be denied. The phasing leaves open the possibility of a "half -completed" development not unlike the current situation at South Village on Spear Street at the top of Allen Road. I felt it important to express my views so that my rights to oppose this development are maintained. Thank you. rel Richard Tarrant Jr. October 13, 2009 Ra Blair The attached are intended as some additional supplemental points that came out of the October 6, D Meeting regarding the Farrell Spear Meadows Project. I would be grateful if you would get these to the DRB Members for their consideration. As they are also relevant to issues I expect that the DRB will be discussing with The City Attorney, I would hope that he is also given a copy. Many Thanks William Gilbert wagvermontacomcast.net 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 To the City of South Burlington Design Review Board October 12, 2009 From William and Maurene Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont Regarding Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42 The DRB and the acting Chair seemed to question the authority of the DRB to disallow an Application submitted for DRB review under the Zoning By-laws of the City. What is the point of having the DRB review a project, if it has no discretion to deny the project that fails to meet the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan? The review might as well be done at the administrative level. The Purpose of the Memorandum is to comment upon statements made at the initial Sketch Plan Hearing on the above referenced matter and is submitted as supplemental material in addition to the letter and memo submitted to the DRB at that hearing. Jurisdiction: The project, Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42, requires PUD approval under Section 9.13 of the SEQ district regulations. For a PUD involving non-contiguous parcels of land, the DRB has discretion to determine whether a transfer of development rights is appropriate under Section 9.13(C) of the Land Development Regulations (the DRB "may" grant approval). This project is also subject to the general PUD review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations. Burden of Proof: It is the responsibility of the Applicant to demonstrate that the Project meets the standards of the zoning by laws of the City of South Burlington. The Applicant must prove that the project meets these standards; the burden is not on opponents to disprove it. Neighborhood Density 2 The area the Applicant seeks to develop is designated for 2 units per acre in the Goals Based Plan found at Appendix E of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The DRB ought to exercise its discretion to satisfy the purposes of the TDR rules, i.e., to direct development to those areas of the SEQ designated for development in the Plan. The Goals Based Plan has a specific and enforceable numerical density standard of two units per acre. The legal rule is clear. Where a municipality has chosen to incorporate the city plan into its bylaws, and that city plan has a specific standard to guide enforcement, such standards have regulatory force. Applicant seeks to ignore the specific two -acre rule. This he cannot do and the DRB may not approve. The DRB ought to exercise its discretion to satisfy the purposes of the TDR rules, i.e., to direct development to those areas of the SEQ designated for development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Application and Plan Ignore the City By laws: There are very specific standards that must be met. Our prior Memorandum and letter to the DRB sets for numerous specific grounds for the rejection of the Applicant's Application and proposed Plan. Indeed, the Plan itself is so amorphous that it was changed at the time of the Applicant's presentation from a request for 92 units to a request for 87 units. In addition to our prior arguments, we urge the DRB to consider the following: 1. Design Criteria -:_The Applicant does not offer even a pretense of compliance with the extensive requirements found at Chapter 9 of the By laws. These By laws establish specific design requirements for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district that are not met by the Applicant's Plan. Applicant has failed to even attempt to meet these requirements in its Application by simply stating on the Application "TBD". The variety of supporting materials presented by the Applicant does not suffice because they ignore the By law design criteria. These Plans themselves were changed by the Applicant at the hearing. General references to minimum curb cuts and "Traditional Neighborhood Design" (an undefined standard that is not in the By laws) do not and cannot replace the specific standards of the Chapter 9 By law. For example, Section 9.08(A) (1) states that development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 feet in length. The Farrell plan shows a linear development extending more than 2000 feet into the property, with no blocks. It is the residential equivalent of strip commercial development. The Applicant has made no effort to meet its burden of demonstrating compliance with these standards. Applicant has provided no list of exemptions that would be required. The Applicant is completely rewriting the design criteria with a few glossy photo shopped images of how it wants to build 93 units. 2. Compatibility with PUD review standards in Section 15.18 -- The general PUD review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations require specific findings of fact by the DRB on numerous very specific design criteria for which the Applicant has provided no information. In fact some criteria are demonstrably violated by the Application, for example: Section 5.18 (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan The Project is not even remotely compatible with the existing patterns or the patterns set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant admits that fact. 2 St. Clair Group 15840 Lakeview Court Grosse Pointe, NU 48230 313-823-6280 October 8, 2009 The Chair and Members of the South Burlington Design Review Board South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 0540 Dear Sirs: This is to express our concern with over the proposed 93 unit Spear Meadows development. My company purchased 1317 Spear Street from the Consuelo North Bailey Estate in 2003. At that time, realtors believed it would be torn down for a new home, since it had not been occupied for more than a few weeks a year since Mrs. Bailey died in 1976, and it had not been more than minimally maintained. But we decided it had "good bones", so I invested over $200,000 to put it into excellent condition. My wife's family have come to Vermont for over 60 years, and I for 27. We love Vermont. My company purchased the house because my wife and I may want to purchase it and occupy it in the future when we are fully retired. In the meantime, it has been leased to Mr. Rick Hubbard since 2004. The proposed 93 unit development seems excessive in a neighborhood of single family homes on large lots. There is little doubt that a dense development including triplex and duplex units would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and impair the property values of the existing homeowners. One could argue that even the originally proposed 29 unit development was harmful, but we were willing to go along with that proposal. We are also concerned with the ingress/egress of any development opposite our driveway. Twenty-nine units would have increased the traffic and risks significantly. Ninety-three units would, in our view, be unmanageable. We respectfully request that you do not approve the most recent Spear Meadows proposal. Roger Fridholm President Email: rf@stclairgroup.net AInterested P ersons Record and Service e List southba . if. 1 w : . •iEsF;OHi' Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: DCir TC��E C, PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTERES11 VE ARn lf Interested Persons ns Record and Service List south uitt. , vesora, Under the 2004-revisions to Chapter 117, the Development administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested Review Board (DRB) has certain compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. there must bean Of the name, address and participation 2 each person who .' The status to demonstrate § on wh ). The DRB must keep a written record 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)...A co y ought interested person status. person A. § a copy of an decision rendered by the DRB Y appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S must be mailed to every receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a persons to the a A. § 4461(b)(3), Upon appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). pp y list of interested HEARING DATE: U Cl G I 60 ? PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME a.c i77v MAILING ADDRESS 45- A-"na-c-&-'b e S� s ("l-e )r 7% ir�r a„e A-rar) I 133 + s kAw �s o rran, 02 7 i2wa c/ _PROJECT OF INTEREST R /111 Q, F�, e 6 ZL ) I (do IntIT-1.erested persons Record and Service List veyn;owr Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every . person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: (% C 1 ;� PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY.1 NAME 0 _ 0 r,• MAILING ADDRESS S (3 v dt I 6+(&- 1 1(0 -j�, PROJECT OF INTEREST —kl. F�rZott-- L' f, ck S r L Pv-10UO—S z �,14 ��. Yoi — �qoy c, �aeve tila,A CC/ �e(( d l�ocx;•vr�� Fad r -, � A"i Interested Persons Record and Service List southhurlingtoll vex ,0"T Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. - § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: CSC ad PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME Ct-t=Fv nA V - A, 0 jm ti �/`cs Yc -e- MAILING ADDRESS Fin 0(�Jjz 4- Va�� PROJECT OF INTEREST ,V-A(d2-il I �'� d'6f-c<-5, f" C rr14n �y ,le Dr. FGr l re I M I VA aim Interested Persons Record and Service � ce List South urhil tor; V ER N10 N'i _Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: O� PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING AD DRESS \/Ci ( e -De-- ') ilk> ?()b 044 0 - 4 VCA t< br PROJECT OF INTERES i. FA `� L Oka, Interested Persons Record an d Service List southbufl.a.igtol, 'i FHktON;' Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person whohas sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every. person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon - receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: /D-- 6 - 0 1 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY.1 NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST 21 be ` LwxT 12 AjowL-rCOLCJVS l C, M-eu.d") -,? 1 -2- N) eja"':'-j J 'I" Am Interested Persons Record and Service List VER%"0Ni U; Eder the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: t% C t PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY1 NAME MAILING ADDRESS 0-1 '} M ta&W oed CtA I Vt) zl / Arv` v'o-e i-tj J—Nlepo� 6W t �� Bd;c IS Awr �� 1�T�J zr�I 19-® ` too x z l PROJECT OF INTEREST CArv-f._ (1 P"I_/-P/7 e le C -C r c-��- ,-D fDr I ® i��sF` r'� �/a�—ane L. �jv✓C... Tml ---7k"10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 29, 2009 drblsublfarrell\SpearkMeadowslsketch_seq.doc Plans received: September 3, 2009 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 Agenda # 6 Meeting date: October 6, 2009 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street I Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 1 Engineer/Landscape Architect Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington VT 05403 TJ Boyle Associates LLC 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Map Pro pertyInformation Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District - Neighborhood Residential Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Zone D 26.94 acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING _ drb\sub\spearmeadows\s_ketch sea Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 3, 2009 and have the following comments. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to `he central issues that seem to present themselves at this stage of the project: densit\ , access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and desig:ri. DENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 acres, s ?1 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 92 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 93 units within the PUD. Therefore, a total of 62 development rights shall be needed. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. 1. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 62 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32 dunit. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right of way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsub\spearmeadows\sketch seg applicant will submit more details of the roadway as part of the preliminary plat application. A 60 foot road right of way and pedestrian connection is proposed to the University -owned parcel to the north. Staff finds this acceptable at this time. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFIGURATION Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington: Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. in this case of competing objectives, staff finds that thcl design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac which is more than 700 feet in length. The S ?uth Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(0)(4). This critericn is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, staff is comfortable with this request. 13. The Board should discuss the proposed cul-de-sac, with respect to the text of the Land Development Regulations. DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted preliminary sketches which illustrate the general layout of the proposed duplexes and triplexes. The applicant states that the "new duplex structures are designed as a t-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street." Furthermore, the applicant states that "the homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction." CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING —_ __ drblsublspearmeadowslsketch sea At this stage in the process, the design proposed by the applicant appears to meet the goals and objectives of the design standards of the Southeast Quadrant enumerated within the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends more detailed, smaller scale sketches of the proposed buildings at the preliminary plat level. The applicant is proposing some amount of open areas. However, these areas are predominantly wetlands and will not be useable by the residents cf the area or by the residents of the City. They do help to accomplish the goal of open space areas. The applicant should prepare a plan for the ongoing maintenance and management of these areas. Furthermore, staff is concerned about the lack of park lands tc ser:e as an arier�ty for . ll residents of the PUD. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety �)f needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one - quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly owned recreation area." The applicant has not proposed any park space; staff does not find that the requirements of this section are being met. The applicant should work with the Planning Staff and the Recreation Staff to better achieve compliance with these criteria. TRAEFJL The 93 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 72.54 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 231). This increased traffic is neither exorbitant nor insignificant. The City requisitioned a corridor study of Spear Street in November, 2004. This corridor study identified several serious concerns within the corridor, most significantly of which is the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street (partial copy attached). It also outlined several recommendations for improvements along the corridor and at this intersection. Staff recommends a traffic analysis for the proposed development which would include this intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. The Board should then discuss any need for technical review of said analysis. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that he proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for some development. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsub\spearmeadows\sketch seq physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the CitY Attorney prior to issuance of a zo,7in.? permit for the first building on the property. [M-001121h•: •� Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issue of park space and proceed to a more detailed, engineered plan to be submitted as part of the preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, //// kit . Gti athyan LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Study Therefore, intersections with longer Control Delay times are less acceptable to most drivers. For unsignalized intersection capacity analyses, LOS provides a description of the delay and operational characteristics of the movements from the minor street (stop sign controlled) and left turns from the major street to the minor street. Major street through and right turn vehicles do not experience delay. Therefore, they are not rated with a LOS. Table 1 (located in the appendix) summarizes the level of service for traffic movements at the various Spear Street intersections. Spear Street at Swift Street This four-way signalized intersection has seen increased traffic volumes on its approaches over the years- Based on existing traffic demand, lane configuration and geometrics, and signal operation, the following deficiencies and issues are of note. 1. Highest accident frequency location along the study section of Spear Street. • 26 accidents reported at intersection during 36-month period (Jan. 2001-Dec. 2003) • Actual accident rate exceeds critical rate 2. Lane alignment - - northbound through lane traffic alignment conflicts with southbound left turn traffic. 3. Poor traffic signal head visibility and placement (no far side signals to advise traffic of end of signal phase) 4. Poor traffic signal operation during peak traffic hours 5. Semi -actuated traffic control not operating efficiently. • Obsolete signal controller and controller equipment. • Poor level of service for Swift Street westbound left turns during PM Design Hour (Level "F") • Long vehicle queue on northbound approach in AM peak hour. (Level of Service "B") Spear Street Southbound at Swift St. Intersection 6. Lane assignment - left turn traffic combined with thru traffic is problematic for Spear Street northbound and Swift Street eastbound. 7. Recreation path crossing of Spear Street is in unsafe location relative to northbound vehicle stop bar - poor pedestrian crossing visibility. 8. Intersection does not provide for safe pedestrian crossings on approaches. 9. Narrow width of thru lane northbound is not conducive to safe bike travel. F:\P2003\644\Al Monidor Plan Report.doc 5 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 9/2/2009 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • List of Abutters • Application Fee in the amount of $125.00 • Overall Location Map • Spear Meadows — Street Elevations by studio b architecture. Ilc (Drawing No. Al, dated 8/18/09) • Spear Meadows — Rendered Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (Sheet No. R100, dated 6/12/09) • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 6/12/09) • Plat of Survey — Lands of Spear Meadows, Inc. by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. (Drawing Number. S1.0, dated March 24, 2009) • Existing Conditions Plan by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. (Drawing Number C1.0A, dated Nov. 2004) This 26.19-acre parcel received approval from the DRB (#SD-06-63) on August 15, 2006 for 1 existing dwelling unit, 18 new single-family lots and 1 multi -family lot to contain 12 dwelling units, for a total of 31 dwelling units; this being the maximum number of units allowed at the base density of 1.2 units per acre. The project did not proceed beyond the local approval stage at that time due to issues related to prime agricultural soils. The parcel is located in the "SEQ-Neighborhood Residential-NR" Zoning District, which is a "receiving" area for TDR's, allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre (or 104 units), as set forth in Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The property owner has entered into an option agreement with Leduc Farm, Inc. for the purchase of 56 units of density. The Leduc land is located in the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection — NRP" Zoning District, a "sending" area per Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The materials submitted herein depict a residential community to contain a total of 93 dwelling units, in the following configurations: 1 existing single-family house; 13 duplex structures and 22 three-plex structures. The new duplex structures are designed as a 2-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street. A carriage house (flat) dwelling unit will be located above the garage. The new three-plex structures present the same design as the duplexes; however the attached garage will have parking for 3 or 4 cars with a carriage house (flat) unit located above the garage, plus another 2-story home attached at the rear of the structure. The 2-story homes (front and rear) will vary in size from 1,400 — 1,900 sf and typically contain 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The carriage house units will vary in size from 1,000 — 1,250 sf and typically contain 1 or 2 bedrooms and 1 or 2 baths. The creative design of the buildings offers infinite opportunities to shift square footage between units, so as to create smaller or larger homes. The homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction. Our goal is to provide a wide variety of very attractive, highly efficient homes that are within the economic reach of folks working within our community. We expect sale prices to start in the mid $200,000's. Design Efficiency We are committed to providing very energy -efficient homes utilizing the latest technologies in the emerging green building movement. This would extend to the site infrastructure improvements wherever possible, as a responsible contribution to a cleaner and safer environment. TDR's With a base density of 31 units and having secured an option to purchase 56 units of additional density from Leduc Farms, Inc., we will need to secure 6 more units of density from within the SEQ-NRP Zoning District to achieve the 93 dwelling units proposed. 0 Page 2 In similar regard, we request a confirmation that we can execute the project up to and including the 31st unit (base density), prior to having to actually purchase and transfer additional density to the project site. Phasing The Spear Meadow community will be built out over a multi -year period, based on market demand commencing as early as 2010, subject to the procurement of permits. We will start with the new road where it intersects with Spear Street and proceed easterly and then southerly, ultimately connecting with the northerly terminus of Vale Drive in the Pinnacle at Spear development. The cul-de-sac section of our development (17 units) would likely be the final phase. We would like to confirm our understanding that we will not be required to complete the Vale Drive connection until we have completed the 50tt' unit (including the existing house). DRB Meeting We intend to make a power -point presentation to the DRB utilizing additional materials intended to demonstrate the quality and fabric of the community we plan to create. All of the comments and suggestions that came out of our private meetings with abutting neighbors back in 2006, as well as the DRB hearings, regarding screening and other matters will be incorporated into our revised plans. Please schedule me before the DRB for a Sketch Plan review at its earliest convenience. Attachments 0 Page 3 KAIo A � Ali J' X 3' X 5' Hi. STONE COLUMN (BOTH SIDES OF ROAD, LABEL BOTH SIOES OF STONE) G _ - - - _ _ —asp_ — 393 — 392 / as, ✓/ / Po Z I PORCH SETBACK IS FROM �\ C BUILDING SETBACK • IfO FROM R.O W.) , RECREATION PATH EASEMENT 'I T�— II Ij FOOT RIGHT-0E-WAY F D FOR FUTURE CONNECTION D TO NORTHERN PARCEL W\ �-- 4A .\' _ _'• / .1. �. �: Open Space - - 396 PROPOSED USE: .. Pinnacle al Spear 92 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (EXISTING) E REQUIRED PARKING: 2.25 SPACES PER UNIT C o 3 n g C. and C. Hager l 207 TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES Volume 391, � I \\ _ \ A-2 I ci, O f t mot' 3 Pages 285-28� � 3aG � � PROPOSED PARKING: � A �0.9 acres C - 120 GARAGE SPACES 36 REAR DRIVEWAY SPACES `\ ON-STREET71 `Y O� 227TOTASPACES SPACESI / 91- _ 2.46 SPACES PER UNIT \ I I NOTE: REQUIRED AND PROPOSED PARKING �— DOES NOT INCLUDE EXISTING RESIDENCE D /A-S EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY \ i \ i RESIDENTIAL UNIT \ I / E sfts I � / I � GRAPHIC SCALE I t i cn 7eo —_ X 35 a,ane 0,2 .—............. "— L100 Burlington VT 05402 301 College Street • twdington • vermont • 05401 802.658 -3555 Nttp:/A~.95oyle.w, 1" = 60' Concept Plan P:\Active Protects Farrell PropertyM2\Dwg\2009-07-02 Spear Meadows—STUDI B LAY UT.awg, 8 2J2009 5:22:29 PM, Adobe PDF 24x36.pc 3 1�I,�VAfION 1, A A %_W� 1, rl_rVAfl00N FVOM 5PrAl2 5fVrEt - 131,1I1-nING tYP� A-alt. r,CAL[ ,'1.o' 1 0" 2. tYPICAL 5Mf �L�VAtION - 131JILPING fYp1�5 J, H-alt, K, J, H, G 5CALE 1/16" 1 0" studio 22 ChtrrCh s t r e 00 t-chiteCture suite 704 u r ling ton landscape Drawings by: Applicant: v e r m o n t ". "a Associates, LLC Eric Farrell ..u.c..a.... 301 College Street P.O. Box 2335 w..w.m. •u Burlington, VT 05401 Burlington, VT 05402 El_EVAfl0N 2, S P E A R M E A D O W South Burlington, Vermont RFC Fs �F SFpo 3 Q41 ofso e 3 W01? B 18 2009 Al Atl+u+wmie SEE NOTE 3 PLAN REFERENCES: A. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ILA M. ISHAM" PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., LAST REVISED JUNE 30. 1999. B. "PLAN OF LAND OF HARRY B. and BERNICE N. CONKLIN" PREPARED BY J.M. SINCLAIR, DATED JULY 1943. C. "FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOT AND JOHN LARKIN" - PINNACLE O SPEAR (FORMERLY NOWLAND TWO), PREPARED BY BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/21/1998. D. "PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LANDS OF PINNACLE O SPEAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION", PREPARED BY LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED & BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 3/31/1999. E. "SWIFT ESTATES" PREPARED BY WILLS ENGINEERING, DATED 9/21/1971. F. "LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT", PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., DATED 4/21/2002. NOTES: 1. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DEPICT THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. AT 1340 SPEAR STREET. OTHER PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY, AND ARE NOT COVERED BY THE CERTIFICATION BELOW. 2. THE BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A TOTAL STATION AND A STEEL TAPE BETWEEN FALL 2003 AND WINTER 2004-5. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMIC NORTH BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 1995. SEE PLAN REFERENCE 1. 4. THE DEED DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIBING THE LOCATIONS OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND SURVEYED AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LOCATED ON THE GROUND WERE COMPARED TO PROVIDE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS THAT ARE MOST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE DEEDS AND CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING MONUMENTATION. WHERE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE ARE SUBSTANTIAL, DEEDS AND/OR PLANS SHOULD BE OR WILL BE EXECUTED TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFLICT OR COLOR OF TITLE. 5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATION HERE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTA71ON AND THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD. REFERENCE TOWN OF BURLINGTON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 1802-1865, PAGE 22 AND TOWN OF SHELBURNE TOWN MINUTES VOLUME 1, PAGE 229. 6. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE, SANITARY SEWER, TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE LOT LINES OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS FROM POINTS OF ORIGIN THROUGH PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR RECORDED EASEMENTS. 7. NOT BEING WTHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR STATE PERMITS. B. THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE "SOUTHEAST QUADRANT' AND "DORSET PARK SCENIC PROTECTION - ZONE D" ZONING DISTRICTS. 9. A 60' WIDE "EASEMENT" AND A 20' WADE "RECREATIONAL EASEMENT", BETWEEN VALE DRIVE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ARE DEPICTED ON REFERENCE PLAN D, AND REVISED (AS SHOWN HEREON) ON REFERENCE PLAN C. THE EARLIER ALIGNMENT IS REFERENCED IN AN "IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION" TO THE CITY DATED NOV. 15. 1995 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 428 AT PAGE 732. o "SWIFT ESTATES' SUBDIVISION / I P.B. Grabowski I M. & M. Scollins T. and L. Kleh C. Shand et al & J. L. Milot Volume 115, Page 523 Volume 175, Pepe 163 Volume 405, Page 726 1 Volume 643, Page 297 S0T32'21'E S0T33'16'E _ Recreational Easement 1.25' IPF �5053.08' _ _ See Note 9 -- AG _ - �- -IPF 359.08' 508'03'16'E ���+ 454.43' - -20 _- r _ _ _ _ - - 268.55' 2" IPF 25' AG 1/2• IRF 317.02' 0 r• A.^, J/a' IaF 1.0' A0 Open Space I` 6QE- \ "R'nnacle (e% $ wl - Spear Meadows, Inc. I / V,q/ Larkin/Milot Partnership E I Volume 296, Page 538 Qtl1MW " Volume 747 Pages 653-656 March 31 2006 UVM and State Agricultural College Volume 134, Page 364 IS ml n 22.26± acres II \ UNDEVELOPED LANDS lay G.N. Farrell 1340 SPEAR STREET Tq y Np�TAco� Q�7/2' Volume 677 Page 402 ±0.94 acres -g°' FoanO T-ea F,°ne 0 7- A(Cppd, - _ 299.53' os' AG o. r Al- �. r / N0353 44w � / I lPF I 1.0 AG r \ 3/4" IPF (Bent) I 24.48' 0 5' AC 0. J/4" IPF ppp� Flush . 1.5' IPF Z J Baker + I AG ' K McCoy -Whitten TO Volume 790 z SWIFT Page 484 1.25" IPF 112' Ar. \ 0.2 ac �s�o>•\ `� ^• 1302 Spear St. Z J/4•IPF Fr"en 5j43 �y� CMF 1V 1.0' AC I I HeeAss I I St deb I "o n a l o /2 W. and M. Gilbert it io Open Space `154Z`5Z / Volume 209, Page 225 ' / 00IF "Pinnacle (q Spear RF ' N1434'5a"E ""sn N8T32'23"E / I C C 48.23' 100.14' I G. and J. Farrell , I h Volume 142, Page 45 // 1 1. IPF (Bent) I P O rvg / J/4"lPF 1 V� 2.99± acres h I (e e) N 4 �'?J E of li �) ? O • 1i 3� 1350 Spear Street "/rA I N147�13 E B�/Y/♦ D. & L. I Youn `mur s16�s* . / V P� s� I Ta ant 0.5' Vol 729 I D. & C. Flenzoni 0.5' AG ry ` T-Bar Fwnd I Bur found (Ca AG I Page 329 Volume 211 I (CoPa d) 0.J AG I Page 447 0 J' AG 3 4• IPF c�atJp IPF S,oF� I G. Sporzynski Fl n \ I os• AG - v7 �•,,, I and LaWgns S r I D. Muhr I M. Dencker 4 I Volume 2la Volume 137 I T-Bo F ntl � (sent) / I � I Pape 323 I Clmmonew Tq 0.2' AG J/4" FF (CWPed) FFT , .IPF\ a7' 314"AG IPF (OotlrOed) LEGEND Q / Al \ net lecetetl SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE Q ti�0 \ cuF F/ h -- - ----- OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) • CALCULATED POINT ZONING BOUNDARY¢'O~�G r.0� 00 4<CeN ROgp CMF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/IRF O IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) S A "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND O 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER, PROPOSED FENCE LINE To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted GRAPHIC SCALE under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the record. This plat is in substantial conformance with 27 VSA 1403. ( IN FEET ) I inch = IDO It. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 SITE ElWKilEER: 0, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane, Sourh Burlington, W 05403 $02-964-2323 FAX 902-86a-227/ web: www.- W..- oaANN PJM / JLM CHEM. JLM Ai)-.O TRC PROJECT SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT =11 LOCATION MAP NIX To Sca e aUrMON PLAT of SURVEY Lands of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATE DRAIIIND NUMBER MAR 24, 2009 ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=100' S1.0 PROJ. NO. 02250 No Text DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 3 There is now only one accessory unit (in the original house) with two single family units. Mr. Provost said he is asking for relief from erosion control. Mr. Belair said there is not much construction left to cause erosion. This would be dealt with at final plat. Mr. Provost showed the location of parking spaces. He said they are asking for footprint lots. Staff had no issue with this. Mr. Belair explained that the owner of the house must live in the house because it has an accessory unit in it. Mr. Stuono asked what is preventing this from being a straight subdivision. Mr. Belair said he didn't know. It would look the same from the street. Mr. Provost said he would like to look into that. Mr. Behr said that can be done at final plat. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-41 of Robert L. Provost subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two- family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three -unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Farrell noted they had received approvals in August of 2006. He showed the parcel which is comprised of 3 lots. He also showed the road plan which was proposed in 2006. There was a cul de sac on Vale Drive which had an easement to the city for a connection to this property. He also indicated that there had been requests from neighbors for landscaping. Mr. Farrell then showed the intersection with Spear St. that will not change with the plan. The existing curb cut to the Farrell house would be removed, and access would be from the extension of Vale Drive. The connection to Vale Drive would have a sidewalk. Mr. Farrell noted that originally Public Works wanted the Vale Drive cul de sac removed and T-intersection built. Mr. Farrell noted that following the 2006 approval, they ran afoul of Act 250 because of prime ag soils. They then withdrew the application. They now have an agreement with the Leduc Farm to purchase 56 development rights from them under the TDR arrangement. This will allow them 4 units per acre on this parcel. If the 93-unit plan is approved, Mr. Farrell said they would still have to purchase 6 additional TDR units from somewhere. They have an alternate plan with fewer units in the event that can't happen. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 4 Mr. Farrell said their plan is to serve the $200,000-$300,000 market. Structures would be from 2500 to 3000 sq. ft in the duplexes and about 4000 sq. ft. in the triplex buildings. He showed a picture of the design concept for the buildings. He said they propose to serve a diverse population. Buildings would be compatible with surrounding homes even though the existing homes are single family and this development has none of those. Buildings would be essentially 2-story with porches. Mr. Farrell then outlined the "qualities" of the proposed project, including: pedestrian friendly, garages 90 degrees from the street, preservation of site features, preservation of wetland and buffers, minimizing of pavement by clustering, street trees, private backyards for each unit, connection to the bike path, and range of housing product. ivir. Farrell showed photos of the site in various directions and also the potential rec path connections and easement. He also indicated a 1.37 acre public park. Parking for the development would consist of one parking space in front of the garages. 195 spaces are required. With the proposed plan 224 spaces would be provided in addition to 34 shared spaces at the far end of the courts. There would also be on -street parking spaces. Mr. Behr asked Mr. Farrell to review the Act 250 issue. Mr Farrell said they went back to Act 250 to get a designation that would allow them to mitigate prime ag soils off -site or pay a mitigation fee (2 acres of mitigation for every acre of prime ag). He indicated they will probably pay the fee. Mr. Stuono said he would prefer to see the public park closer to denser areas, not adjacent to open space, so that it would be more usable to other neighborhoods. He also suggested an area for a community garden. Mr. Farrell said Mr. Conner asked them to look into the best practices for storm water management to possibly reduce the size of the pond. This could result in space for a garden, etc. Mr. Knudsen asked if the applicant anticipates any off -site traffic mitigation. Mr. Farrell said that would depend on the traffic study. Mr. Knudsen asked if the applicant felt the project meets the requirements for "orientation to the street." Mr. Farrell said he felt it was a thoughtful design. He said some people like to live on a street, others don't. The benefit of this design is fewer curb cuts. Also in this design neighbors face each other for a courtyard feeling, and houses have porches that face each other. Mr. Belair said he felt this plan meets the spirit of the requirement. Mr. Gilbert showed the location of his parcel and gave the Board a letter outlining his t 1 if ♦a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 5 concerns. He said he hadn't opposed the earlier 30+ unit proposal as he counted on the DRB and Act 250. Now it seems that density has swallowed everything. He asked the DRB to use judgment as he felt the problems with density outweigh the benefits. He said this project will overwhelm the quality of life and reduce existing property values. He felt the density is totally out of character with anything in this part of the city and that it will wind up looking like "a strip mall" built on a slab. He felt it was essentially an apartment complex which is 6 times more dense than South Village (the acreage is 12% of the South Village acreage). Mr. Gilbert felt the Vale Drive connection should be done immediately, not after the 5 1 " unit. Mr. Behr then asked Mr. Skiff to read his letter to the Board into the Record. Mr. Skiff indicated he was reserving his right to appeal. He felt the application was not complete and did not conform with the city plan or state law. He felt this was an apartment complex in a single family neighborhood. He also felt the Vale Drive connection should occur before the project is built. Mr. Scollins, an abutter, said he was involved with the first proposal. He felt the main issue is incompatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. He said that when they bought their home 35 years ago, they chose to live in the "country," and they felt the city supported that. When the zoning was changed, they were told the DRB would "reconcile interests of developers and residents." He felt this is not the appropriate place for an apartment complex. Mr. Van Koerring said he wasn't opposed to the original development. His main concern with this one is traffic. He said at 8 a.m. it is now an impossible situation, and South Village isn't even fully developed. Mr. Cimonetti, who lives across the street from the proposed project, felt the applicant's analogy to "rural homes" is wrong as carriage houses are above 3-car garages. He felt this plan reminds him in design of "pictures of trailer parks." Mr. Cimonetti also noted that the proposed "public park" is actually smaller than the lawn that is being preserved on Gary Farrell's property. Mr. Young thanked Mr. Farrell for hosting a community meeting. He felt the neighborhood impact is clear. Parking is also a concern to him. He felt this would become a prime area for UVM rentals and all that that would bring. Mr.Young said he supported the original proposal but feels this is "over the top." Mr. Hubbard, who lives opposite the entrance to the proposed development, felt there was safety issue regarding the number of cars and bicycles. He noted that going north, bikes are in the travel lane with cars, and most days there are hundreds of cyclists. Mr. Kleh, an abutter, said the wetland would be surrounded by this project, and this year the area was very wet. He also felt all the wildlife would be wiped out. He asked if the units would have to be owner -occupied. Mr. Behr said the DRB can't require that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 6 Ms. Dopp said this is very close to the East Woods area where there is a lot of wildlife. She felt that the more the gateways to the Southeast Quadrant are closed off, the more access to wildlife is closed. She didn't feel the real intent of TDR's was to build out in areas such as this. Ms. Walker asked why when they couldn't get the single family homes through Act 250 did they go in this direction. Mr. Farrell said they no longer want to serve the $500,000 to $1,000,000 market, and it costs too much to mitigate prime ag soils. Mr. Chamberlain noted there are 28 houses on Vale Drive. This would quadruple that number. He said they moved to their home so their children could live in an open environment. Mr. Bresee said the Rec Path Committee is pleased to see the path along the east side of the property. He stressed that it is essential that the design parameters of the Spear Street study be adhered to. Mr. Church said he wasn't keen to have the road connection. He noted there is already a water pressure problem at Pinnacle. He said the plan reminds him of "bowling alley homes." The President of the Pinnacle Board said he hoped the DRB was listening to what neighbors are saying. He didn't feel that TDR's were meant "to keep part of the city open and rape another part." Mr. Walcott said he understood the value of this property, but he felt the plan would create a nightmare. He said there would have to be traffic lights at this intersection and at Nowland Farm Road. Ms. O'Shea asked whether there really was a need for housing in South Burlington. Ms. Dopp said she didn't feel South Burlington has to absorb all the development in Chittenden County. Mr. Behr said South Burlington doesn't have growth limitations. The DRB upholds the regulations as they are set forth by the Planning Commission and City Council. He said he would prefer to continue the Sketch Plan hearing and allow the DRB to meet with the City Attorney regarding regulations about TDRs and the discretion the Board has. Other members favored this as well. Mr. Knudsen said he would like to "digest" this plan before making suggestions to the applicant. Mr. Donahue asked the Board to ask the City Attorney whether this development can be held up until the Spear/Swift intersection is redesigned and built. A member of the audience asked what is within the Board's power and how a developer DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 7 can go ahead with something that is not in the spirit of what the "people" want. Mr. Behr explained that the Board has very little right to deny a project that fits within the regulations. If they do, and if it then goes to Court, the city would have no case. Mr. Seff, President of Swift Estates, asked if there has ever been a project built using TDRs. Mr. Belair said there has. Ms. Quimby then moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 Of Gary Farrell et al until 17 November 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-43 of O'Brien Family LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of subdividing a 64.51 acre parcel into nine lots ranging in size from 1.5 acres to 23.1 acres, 200 Old Farm Road & Kimball Avenue: Ms. O'Brien showed the location of the area. She noted there are 3 zones within the parcel. Lot #1 is zoned C-1, Lots #2-8 are zoned I-C, and Lot #9 is R-1. No development is planned for lot #9 at this time. Mr. Homestead indicated they are proposing a new city street ending in a cul de sac with future connection to Tilley Drive. He showed the location of this on an aerial photo. They are approximating the intent of the road on the official city map. They have reasons for not wanting it where it is on the map. Their proposal for the road would skirt an area of ledge so there would be less slope and less blasting. Mr. Homestead showed existing curb cuts. They are proposing one additional curb cut to access lot #1. Lot #8 would be accessed off the new road. Plans for this will be submitted to the Fire Chief. Mr. Knudsen questioned how curb cuts line up with those across the street. Mr. Homestead said there is a Class 2 wetland across from the curb cut on the opposite side of the road and a very steep slope across from another curb cut. Ms. LaRose noted that when Exit 12B is built, there could be a light in this area. Access should be lined up with the location of that light as there could be significant traffic in the area. Ms. O'Brien stressed the amount of ledge involved. Mr. Behr said the Board has to be sure that in the future this road won't be a major issue for the city. Mr. Behr said the Board will also want to see a potential plan for build -out. The applicant wouldn't be held to it, but the Board needs an idea about potential sharing of accesses, etc. The Board agreed to let the applicant go on to preliminary plat with the understanding that the Board would rule on whatever the applicant proposes to deal with issues raised. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-46 of Burlington Properties Limited Partnership for a planned unit development to subdivide a 77.6 acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 4.9 acres to 38.6 acres, 85 Meadowland Drive-(Dynapower): South PLAN NiN6 & ZONING MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington City Development Review Board Fr: Bill Szymanski, City Engineer Date: October 22, 2009 Re: Comments — Spear Meadows 1. Street design must consider snow storage. The submitted plan will require snow to be pushed on to sidewalks and bike paths or picked up and hauled away. There should be a grassed strip 3 to 5 feet in width on both sides of the street for snow storage. 2. Sewage from this development will flow to the Bartlett Bay Treatment Plant. The lines to the plan must be checked for capacity. 575 Dorset Stlet'. South tel k<+>,' S46 11 tit', fax ` : ,� ., 46 41 0' www s bud (orm / Lay s-T. S�rz c 7< /1-7 wi1J rG 4, v, 7l70t.0 TC� en L7 c/ l� d r, 12 Z, S t �0 Lu Permit Number SD- - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Meadows, Inc. 1350 Spear Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 Tel. (802) 863-5822 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Vol. 677, P. 402 Vol. 142, p. 45 Vol. 747, p. 653-656 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Eric F. Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 06402 Tel. (802) 861-3000 Fax (802) 861-3003 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) Optionee 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Eric F. Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Tel. (802) 861-3000 Fax (802) 861-3003 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 1302 —1340 -1350 Spear Street 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) Two single-family homes + vacant land. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) One single-family home + 13 duplexes + 22 three-plexes c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) Single-family home to remain — 5,000 sf +/- New duplexes & three-plexes—135,000 sf +/- d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) All 2-story at approximately 30 feet +/- e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) One existing single-family home to remain + 92 duplexes & three-plexes f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) Dorset Park Scenic Protection — Zone D 9) LOT COVERAGE - TBD a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed % 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) Proposed 60' ROW to benefit adjacent property to the north Proposed recreation path easement Proposed (customary) utility easements 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) Extension of Vale Drive Municipal Water & Sewer 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) Attached 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE - December 31, 2015 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I " x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIOJWATURE OI~ AP lV�' LZ'e't"t', SIGNATUAL OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: empl e Incomplete FARRELL SUBDIVISION List of Abutters May 29, 2009 Parcel Number Name & Address Subject Property: 1640-1340 Spear Meadows, Inc. c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 Abutters: 1742-00033 R Larkin/Milot Partnership P.O. Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01350 R Gary N. & Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00112 Brett P. Grabowski & Jennifer L. Milot 23 Dorey Rd So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01260 N UVM & State Agricultural College 85 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 1640-01402 R Linda & David Young 1402 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01406 R Douglas J. & Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00214 R Michael J. & Mary D. Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01430 R Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 2 0570-01225 R Ila M. Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1160-00219 R Thomas R. & Louise T. Kleh 219 Meadow Wood Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01302 R Gary N. Farrell 1350 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Open Space Pinnacle at Spear Pinnacle @ Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01400 R William A. & Maureen G. Gilbert 1400 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01408 R George A. Sporzynski & Diane I. Muhr 1408 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01317 R St. Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 1640-01331 R Robert & Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01393 R William & Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 1640-01404 R Rich & Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Farrell Subdivision List of Abutters - Page 3 1640-01300 R Kim McCoy -Whitten & Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1645-00089 R Robert A. & Marjorie N. Skiff 89 Springhouse Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 south - :. i. PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Gary N. Farrell, Jan G. Farrell & Spear Meadows 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. Cc: Eric F. Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com ,� . ,I LINO f southburfington PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Spear Meadows, Inc c/o Brent Farrell Double Tree Hotel Burlington 1117 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 .vww.sburl.com so uthbnrlp, rp.g o; PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Larkin/Milot Partnership PO Box 4193 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 41.06, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, ?Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com o 4� ,WE.��/ `f southburlingtolrt PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Brett Grabowski and Jennifer Milot 23 Dorey Road South' Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 wwv.-.sburl.com A southburlington PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 UVM and State Agricultural College 85 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, �s YJna Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburf.com "..I&rr P-MON will South hngto rn, PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Linda and David Young 1402 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. Si S Dorset Street South Burlington, VT O5403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com �WA,X Smut'_ _ °i. PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Douglas and Christine Franzoni 1406 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, )§�I— Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com Air / XA PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Michael and Mary Scollins 214 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, ?Jana7Beaaley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com r ,I�• , `r south urfi atop PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Margareta D. Dencker 1430 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com .l(r /M,�N south,. �; � . PLANNING & Z O N I N G September 18, 2009 Ila Isham Estate 1225 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th., 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com ►�MO A M `� south u rliin Lit l PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Thomas and Louise Kleh 219 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. Stag; law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana BeaRley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 0 south° ° ng o � PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Pinnacle at Spear c/o Betsy Carter Real Estate Management, Inc. 81 Ethan Allen Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. ,t Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com si�e 0 sout hbur_ PLANNING & Z O N I N G September 18, 2009 William and Maureen Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to thb Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory prtceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern relatedft the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com A(i- I ,/ south u��h t PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 George Sporzynski and Diane Muhr 1408 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local, development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, ?Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com south "ttrlugtou PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 St Clair Group, Inc. 15840 Lakeview Court Crosse Point, MI 48230 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation ih a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to th6 Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related io the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to 'know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 84 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincere?,,, 2,6 .Tana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant L:nel. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com southburfilrtgton PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Robert and Estaleen Lavigne 1331 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont. Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com south . ngto PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 William and Tanya Cimmonetti 1393 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory pr6ceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related'to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com southbpurIfingtort PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Rich and Tracy Tarrant 1404 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont - Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beaglev Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com r ►NN LW,01�1 south ►urlin ton. PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Kim McCoy -Whitten and Kevin Sellon 1300 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting, The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to &e Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related`to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, o.c 4at Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www,sburi.com south -n , �o, PLANNING & ZONING September 18, 2009 Robert and Marjorie Skiff 89 Springhouse Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1340-1350 Spear Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the October 6th, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation -in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846- 4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, J Jana ZBeagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com m E a Q N 0 N N_ M. and M. Scolins I T. and L Kleh 1. Isham Estate R. and M. Skiff I 1160 00214 1160-00219 0570-01225 / 1645-00089 _ .. �.1+-- 4 _ 395 0 1' . - ..�_�_ - ," ♦ _ - .. r i7, 1. J. h t x- - - - _ _ 1' 7 Q Space ' .. 39H.Q. .-- _ ----_ - ` -_- _, •'.-__.._.. - _..---_.' __ '-.._- ' _ - 5 - - - - - _ ._- ..__.------.- --._.__- - - - - - - . _ - - � - - - - - - _ 95 \ - Pinnocle at Spec _.394......-_-. -----'_--------395--'---- .._.. ...-_-..___.- / .;t9.3..... ...._ ._ ... 394" .. ......... .._. - 395 _ _ \ - _... - ''., �... '•, � tom.. �� _ .;92-. .... _.. .. ....... __.__._____.. ... 599 3 3 190 - • _.... _ / . _ - 1 �, \ / /Mllot Partnership ` 0 �3 I 1742-0 033� 7Co n - Lary ship , r NOS DELINEAT ED RY YNLLIAM 0 COUNTRYMAN SF. .+ a - 1 �� .rp� '._....___.._. _......., - `- _ ,. - '• ,mac Y� I /-� i _ 4 +, ffyyS� �4 ' Y�•i.,l G � y e77.1. -- --- •_ 0 T` j 9 •_ MAPPED CLASS Ir .5911, i \ Sae �,h : : 90 1 I I �1 1 I G. Farrel 1 l 1 / 1640-01302 svH.. _ . • ti' (., - �� W. and M. Gilbert _ t 1640-01400 39. --- Q. and J. Farrel • 1640-01350 / >� IT, l I Consuela Baley Estate\ - I c/o L Hackett 1640-01350 /yx\ EXISTING SMHJ RIM-390.Ot I I INV-385.4t R. and E. Lavigne 1640-01331 I I I I I I I I I / / I • ` f9g _l L and D. Ybong 1640-01402 I I I II I �,- — .•/J ,�.'� i i I --\ i G.Swzynski ,__"'( 1640-01408 T. and M. I I • Wuilfson<; I M. Dencker ��� I I I 1640-01404 I I - I 1640-01430 �� - - 0„-- and C. Frani�Onl _ L ..... �l 1640-01406 .- I B. and T. rmonetti s I 1640-01C�r393 �' EXISTING SMH I RIM=384.5t 1 1 I I I M,A7CN tlS+E-. 'p10N�T— I I // I 1 INV=379.2t I I Open Space Pinnacle at Spear - AIATOlT UNE LEIIT I II II EXISTING SMH I I RIM=377.5i 1 I •INV` 373.2t -1'I �� I I ass SITE ENGINEER: r'A CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. P. 90Y 495 SHELBURNE ✓f 05182 :.1OF,:2JPJ FAA. R M-2211 ROb. WAti . .n.—• DKA.R a YE PJM s`,a CHECKED A � C* A SAV /Si26 APPROVEDll, CrySi CV - PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LEGEND +-•; EXISTING CONTOUR ENSING PRDPDSED — —SS— GRAVITY SEWER LINE — —FM FORCE MAIN — — W — WATER LINE — —OE — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — --UE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC ---- — UT — UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE -- G — GAS LINE — — ST STORM DRAINAGE LINE OCO GRAVITY SEWER CREANOUT ® (9 SEWER MANHOLE ® STORM MANHOLE x'( HYDRANT a ® SHUT-OFF ® ® CATCH BASIN w POWER POLE wvwv.., EDGE OF WOODS I DATE I CHECKED I REVISION I 112/5/051 SAV I FINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL I EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN DATE DRA•ING NUNRER NOV., 2004 SCAB = 60' C1.0A PROD. ND. \ 02250 a Mr. John Dinklage Planning Department South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Meadows Project Dear John: Please accept this letter in opposition to the Spear Meadows Project in lieu of my physical presence at the Review Board Meeting. Due to business requirements, I am unable to attend in person. I am opposed to the current plan for Spear Meadows for the following reasons: • The original plan that was presented to me consisted of 29 total units. The current plan has expanded three -fold to 93 units. To date we have not been presented any data on this new plan or the impacts it will have on our community. • This density of units completely changes the character of the neighborhood. • The traffic impact onto Spear Street at the intersection of Swift Street will significantly deteriorate an already overcrowded intersection. • The waivers requested to allow phasing of the plan should be denied. The phasing leaves open the possibility of a "half -completed" development not unlike the current situation at South Village on Spear Street at the top of Allen Road. I felt it important to express my views so that my rights to oppose this development are maintained. Thank you. Sinc rel Richard Tarrant Jr. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 29, 2009 drb\sub\farrell\SpearkMeadows\sketch_seq.doc Plans received: September 3, 2009 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 Agenda # 6 Meeting date: October 6, 2009 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer/Landscape Architect Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Tax Parcel 1640-01350 10 Mansfield View Lane SEQ Zoning District - South Burlington VT 05403 Neighborhood Residential Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Zone D TJ Boyle Associates LLC 26.94 acres 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Ma CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsublspearmeadowslsketch seg Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 3, 2009 and have the following comments. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this stage of the project: density, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and design. pENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 92 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 93 units within the PUD. Therefore, a total of 62 development rights shall be needed. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. 1. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 62 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32 ndunit. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cut -de -sac. A right of way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsub\spearmeadows\sketch sea applicant will submit more details of the roadway as part of the preliminary plat application. A 60 foot road right of way and pedestrian connection is proposed to the University -owned parcel to the north. Staff finds this acceptable at this time. LOT LAYOUT & RDAD CONFIGURATION Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culls de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This criterion is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of [he lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, staff is comfortable with this request. 13. The Board should discuss the proposed cul-de-sac, with respect to the text of the Land Development' Regulations. The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted preliminary sketches which illustrate the general layout of the proposed duplexes and triplexes. The applicant states that the "new duplex structures are designed as a t-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street." Furthermore, the applicant states that "the homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction." CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\s earmeadows\sketch se At this stage in the process, the design proposed by the applicant appears to meet the goals and objectives of the design standards of the Southeast Quadrant enumerated within the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends more detailed, smaller scale sketches of the proposed buildings at the preliminary plat level. The applicant is proposing some amount of open areas. However, these areas are predominantly wetlands and will not be useable by the residents of the area or by the residents of the City. They do help to accomplish the goal of open space areas. The applicant should prepare a plan for the ongoing maintenance and management of these areas. Furthermore, staff is concerned about the lack of park lands to serve as an amenity for all residents of the PUD. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one - quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The applicant has not proposed any park space; staff does not find that the requirements of this section are being met. The applicant should work with the Planning Staff and the Recreation Staff to better achieve compliance with these criteria. The 93 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 72.54 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 231). This increased traffic is neither exorbitant nor insignificant. The City requisitioned a corridor study of Spear Street in November, 2004. This corridor study identified several serious concerns within the corridor, most significantly of which is the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street (partial copy attached). It also outlined several recommendations for improvements along the corridor and at this intersection. Staff recommends a traffic analysis for the proposed development which would include this intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. The Board should then discuss any need for technical review of said analysis. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that he proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for some development. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT CF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONINC'' drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch se?, physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands c;. associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents whic,) shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging.. shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in th;: association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance cr a zoning permit for the first building on the property. • 1A ► • � Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board t(. address the issue of park space and proceed to a more detailed, engineered plan to be submittec as part of the preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, &Assoc6ate athya aR Lo e, Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant Fuss &O'Neill Inc. Spear Street Corridor Study Therefore, intersections with longer Control Delay times are less acceptable to most drivers. For unsignalized intersection capacity analyses, LOS provides a description of the delay and operational characteristics of the movements from the minor street (stop sign controlled) and left turns from the major street to the minor street. Major street through and right turn vehicles do not experience delay. Therefore, they are not rated with a LOS. Table 1 (located in the appendix) summarizes the level of service for traffic movements at the various Spear Street intersections. Spear Street at Swift Street This four-way signalized intersection has seen increased traffic volumes on its approaches over the years. Based on existing traffic demand, lane configuration and geometrics, and signal operation, the following deficiencies and issues are of note. L. Highest accident frequency location along the study section of Spear Street. • 26 accidents reported at intersection during 36-month period (Jan. 2001-Dec. 2003) • Actual accident rate exceeds critical rate 2. Lane alignment — northbound through lane traffic alignment conflicts with southbound left turn traffic. 3. Poor traffic signal head visibility and placement (no far side signals to advise traffic rA'end of signal phase) 4. Poor traffic signal operation during peak traffic hours 5. Semi -actuated traffic control not operating efficiently. • Obsolete -signal controller and controller equipment. • Poor level of service for Swift Street westbound left turns during PM Design Hour (Level "F") • Long vehicle queue on northbound approach in AM peak hour. (Level of Service "E") Spear Street Southbound at Swift St. Intersection 6. Lane assignment — left turn traffic combined with thru traffic is problematic for Spear Street northbound and Swift Street eastbound. �'7. Recreation path crossing of Spear Street is in unsafe location relative to northbound vehicle stop bar— poor pedestrian crossing visibility. S. Intersection does not provide for safe pedestri"n crossings on approaches 9. Narrow width ofthru lane northbound is not conducive to safe bike travel. F:\P2003\644\A10\Corridor Plan Report.doc 5 Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 9/2/2009 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 — 1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • List of Abutters • Application Fee in the amount of $125.00 • Overall Location Map • Spear Meadows — Street Elevations by studio b architecture. Ilc (Drawing No. Al, dated 8/18/09) • Spear Meadows — Rendered Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. R100, dated 6/12/09) • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 6/12/09) • Plat of Survey — Lands of Spear Meadows Inc by Civil Engineering_Associates, Inc. (Drawing Number. S1.0, dated March 24, 2009) • Existing Conditions Plan by Civil Engineering Associates Inc (Drawing Number C1.0A, dated Nov. 2004) This 26.19-acro parcel received approval from the DRB (#SD-06-63) on August 15, 2006 for 1 existing dwelling unit, 18 new single-family lots and 1 multi -family lot to contain 12 dwelling units, for a total of 31 dwelling units; this being the maximum number of units allowed at the base density of 1.2 units per acre. The project did not proceed beyond the local approval stage at that time due to issues related to prime agricultural soils. . The parcel is located in the "SEQ-Neighborhood Residential-NR" Zoning District, which is a "receiving" area for TDR's, allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre (or 104 units), as set forth in Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The property owner has entered into an option agreement with Leduc Farm, Inc. for the purchase of 56 units of density. The Leduc land is located in the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection — NRP" Zoning District, a "sending" area per Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The materials submitted herein depict a residential community to contain a total of 93 dwelling units, in the following configurations: 1 existing single-family house; 13 duplex structures and 22 three-plex structures. The new duplex structures are designed as a 2-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street. A carriage house (flat) dwelling unit will be located above the garage. The new three-plex structures present the same design as the duplexes; however the attached garage will have parking for 3 or 4 cars with a carriage house (flat) unit located above the garage, plus another 2-story home attached at the rear of the structure. The 2-story homes (front and rear) will vary in size from 1,400 — 1,900 sf and typically contain 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The carriage house units will vary in size from 1,000 — 1,250 sf and typically contain 1 or 2 bedrooms and 1 or 2 baths. The creative design of the buildings offers infinite opportunities to shift square footage between units, so as to create smaller or larger homes. The homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction. Our goal is to provide a wide variety of very attractive, highly efficient homes that are within the economic reach of folks working within our community. We expect sale prices to start in the mid $200,000's. Design Efficiencv We arc, committed to providing very energy -efficient homes utilizing the latest technologi;s in the emerging green building movement. This would extend to the site infrastructure improvements wherever possible, as a responsible contribution to a cleaner and safer environment. TDR's With a base density of 31 units and having secured an option to purchase 56 units of additional density from Leduc Farms, Inc., we will need to secure 6 more units of density from within the SEQ-NRP Zoning District to achieve the 93 dwelling units proposed. r Page 2 In similar regard, we request a confirmation that we can- execute the project up to and including the 31s` unit (base density), prior to having to actually purchase and transfer additional density to the project site. Phasing The Spear Meadow community will be built out over a multi -year period, based on market demand commencing as early as 2010, subject to the procurement of permits. We will start with the new road where it intersects with Spear Street and proceed easterly and then southerly, ultimately connecting with the northerly terminus of Vale Drive in the Pinnacle at Spear development. The cul-de-sac section of our development (17 units) would likely be the final phase. We would like to confirm our understanding that we will not be required to complete the Vale Drive connection until we have completed the 50th unit (including the existing house). DRB Meeting We intend to make a power -point presentation to the DRB utilizing additional materials intended to demonstrate the quality and fabric of the community we plan to create. All of the comments and suggestions that came out of our private meetings with abutting neighbors back in 2006, as well as the DRB hearings, regarding screening and other matters will be incorporated into our revised plans. Please schedule me before the DRB for a Sketch, Plan review at its earliest convenience. Attachments Oage;3 3' x J' x S' HT. STONE COLUMN (BOTH SIDES OF ROAD.IABEL BOTH SIDES OF STONE) —x- — x 395— —aft 390 Tt� PORCH SE78ACK C (SFROMR.O.W.)-- ` • • BUILMW D-FROAS.O.W.) tip (10' FROM R,O.W.) F \ / / • • 4' RECREATION ' PATH EASEMENT E � F — \ saFoorRloHru wAv — \ I D FOR FUTURE CONNECTION I \ �' II _ — F — D F i II. TO NO PARCEL ` / \ p ` • — B \ A-2 C ' • 1 , , — — — / �.' _ Open Space /Y PROPOSED USE: 92 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS I - _ _ ! �, �' Pinnacle at Spear 385 - / - 1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (EXISTING) � E G [� REQUIRED PARKING: 1 ® �_ G /0 0 3 2.25 SPACES PER UNIT C. and C. Hager / j 207 TOTAL REQUIRED SPACER r \ Volume � J - / / PROPOSED PARKING: \\\ \ - D Il J 5-2 Of .r0.g acres 120 GARAGE SPACES C % �-- - i6 :EAR DRIVEWAY SPACES 71 ON -STREET SPACES \� �9+- L /7 / \ I 227 TOTAL SPACES � I 2.4.46 SPACES PER UNIT / NOTE: REQUIRED AND PROPOSED PARKING / DOES NOT INCLUDE EXI^:TING RESIDENCE /A-S �y .• /r, EXISTING SINOLETIAL UN RFSIDENTNL UNIT — If WIA IGRAPHIC SCALE o ( 1N FEET) I t ta•I.. aB w P:\Active J' �G _390— so 1 Applicant: Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 landscape architects . planning Consultants /// jbD 06-1 -2009 - — 301 coke a street • bodin ton • vemwnt • CS401 802 •656 •' -Budington,VT05402 9 9 rtA• _ pear ea lows_ ST=B LAyo . wg, o e �b-pc - - — - FI,FVAriON 1 r 1. �L�VArI00N FWM 5FAI; 5Tk;� f - 13UH-PIN6 rYFA-alt. 5GALE: 1/ I6" 1,-011 2. rYPIGA� 51"12 f E�VArION - PUII-PING rYF5 J, H-alt, K, J, H, G 5LAlE: 1/I6" I.-O" _- studio ' 22 church 22 s t r e e t architecture I.I.c. suite 304 b u r l i n g t o n Landsaoe Drawings by: a (cant: verm0nt c..rxa...... a Tl"Amodetes, 1l Eric Farrell s....a.e.�a.r.. 301 College Street P.O. Box 133S I01 ---' a Burlington, VT OS401 Burlington, VT 05402 FI,FVArION 2. S P E A R M E A C O W S o u t h B u r I I n g t o n, n t -- Aataorom{a SEE NOTE 3 PLAN REFERENCES: A. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ILA M. ISHAM" PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., LAST REVISED JUNE 30. 1999. B. 'PLAN OF LAND OF HARRY B. and BERNICE N. CONKLIN" PREPARED BY J.M. SINCLAIR, DATED JULY 1943. C. 'FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOT AND JOHN LARKIN" - PINNACLE O SPEAR (FORMERLY NOWLAND TWO), PREPARED BY BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/21/1998. D. 'PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LANDS OF PINNACLE O SPEAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION", PREPARED BY LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED & BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 3/31/1999. E. "SWIFT ESTATES' PREPARED BY WILDS ENGINEERING, DATED 9/21/1971. F. "LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT", PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., DATED 4/21/2002. NOTES: 1. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DEPICT THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. AT 1340 SPEAR STREET. OTHER PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY, AND ARE NOT COVERED BY THE CERTIFICATION BELOW, 2. THE BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A TOTAL STATION AND A STEEL TAPE BETWEEN FALL 2003 AND WINTER 2004-5. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMIC NORTH BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 1995. SEE PLAN REFERENCE 1. 4. ME GEED DESCRIPTIOtiS DESCRIBING THE LOCATIONS OF THE BOUNDAPIES OF THE NO SURVEYED AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENC"= LOCATED WTHE GROUND WERE COMPARED TO PROVIDE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS THAT ARE MOST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE DEEDS AND CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING MONUMENTATION. WHERE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE ARE SUBSTANTIAL, DEEDS AND/OR PLANS SHOULD BE OR WILL BE EXECUTED TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFLICT OR COLOR OF TITLE. 5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATION HERE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTATION AND THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD. REFERENCE TOWN OF BURLINGTON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 1802-1865, PAGE 22 AND TOWN OF SHELBURNE TOWN MINUTES VOLUME 1, PAGE 229. 6. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE, SANITARY SEWER, TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE LOT LINES OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS FROM POINTS OF ORIGIN THROUGH PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR RECORDED EASEMENTS. +. NOT BEING WITHIN 1HE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL FNGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR STATE PERMITS. 3. THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE "SOUTHEAST QUADRANT" AND "DORSET PARK SCENIC PROTECTION - ZONE D" ZONING DISTRICTS. 9. A 60' WIDE "EASEMENT" AND A 20' WIDE "RECREATIONAL EASEMENT", BETWEEN VALE DRIVE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ARE DEPICTED ON REFERENCE PLAN D, AND REVISED (AS SHOWN HEREON) ON REFERENCE PLAN C. THE EARLIER ALIGNMENT IS REFERENCED IN AN "IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION" TO THE CITY DATED NOV. 15. 1995 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 428 AT PAGE 732. 0 Q U _O g al "SWIFT ESTATES" SUBDIVISION I P.B. Grabowski I M. & M. Scollins I T. and L. Kleh i C. Shand et al ��'� y�2 & J. L. Milot I Volume 115, Pegs 523 Volume 175, Page 163 I Volume 405, Page 726 ti I Volume 643, Page 297 I I 20 Recreational Easement 3/4' IPF I 50T33'i6'E �..SOS'31'35°E See Nota9 _--__ r.25'AG-_- -- 1 S0T32'21°E- '. 4 r•IPF 359.08' - "--Y-I- -- •--0---- - ..��00_ ��� '- 317.02' 3/4•av' 454.43'------- -�-- 1,0• Ac , , Open Space - _ 2" IPf 268.55' a , AGF 'Pinnacle @Spear' 23' AG ` 60'E��� ` \ °gNOtes � \/ Spear Meadows, Inc. Larkin/Milot PartnershipIj DA�VF Volume 747 Pages 653-656 I Volume ume 296, Page 5`., DULDESAC op March 312006 UVM and State Agricultural College , Y 22.261: acres Volume 134, Pegs 361 �I UNDEVELOPED LANDS lay I G.N. Farrell 1340 SPEAR STREET Volume 677 Page 402 T--Bar Found T-ear Faand I / yFsr\ ±0.94acres o�PAc)ppp....��.. NO3'9299.53' o.s'Ac / Np 9k`TF:��y / 3w T44 2 1/2' IPF / TL I 1.0' AG V N14'23'51' 1 \ w1 h N N / IVI 5/4' IPF fenq 24.46' 0.5 AO- )l FI' IPF •_ N� 'I N143-23• qs �5S2\ ` Wand M. Gilbert Volume 209, Pegs 225 N8T32'23'E / o�`2�lI nnaBn Space we Q �7;S J/41.5' nr Ac J. Baker KMcCoy-Whit: 4'4'E Tp Volume 790 Slt%A'T Page 484 1.25: IPF sTR f 02AG G. and J. Farrell i l\l�� eT 3/.-IPF ry , \ G.2 Ac �° •;,• `S 1302 Speer &/ 1' Volume 142, Page 45 7 ®� , df e t 2 99 "t. 2CrPS r . .1/s• IPF N7 00-?3, r.G' Ac I 1C / 2 h /♦♦♦y Flush 4* IPF nll r 54�! 1350c;ear Street �OFAG fBen4 118 J on /Me) /IO 'w.� N1SZ61 \\ '1¢ �n y^A D. & L. i I / \ / I I J. \��\ s s16s` l HacAeB o.d Ar. 4 Young WPowagm'B I a ant Vol729 I O. / I & C. Franzoni I N ?6134f I P 329 Volume 211 (COPPee) ,_ 0.3'AG St. Clair Group, Inc I (� \ �l�°Fq D" AC I i / Page 447 0.3• Ac 1h I I /IPF A G. Sporrynski and I I LeOgne ; \ I D. Muhr I M. Dencker �>F Found 3r' * \ LOOS'A) Volume 218 Volume 137 I Hush I I Page 287 I Page 323 Cimmoneffi �T9FF � r •:� ' V / d/4' IPF - fl� 0.7• AG LEGEND Q / �o�/s ` \ I t 1-i d ) SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE �O \ ro\ cur -- - - OTHER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.) � -- • CALCULATED POINT V A, tj `i, CFO TO ItQN R ZONING BOUNDARYQO1 1.0' AG Oq0 CUF/MMF ❑ CONCRETE/MARBLE MONUMENT FOUND IPF/IRF 0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND (w/SIZE) "T BAR" FOUND AG ABOVE GROUND 5/8" REBAR w/ SURVEY MARKER, PROPOSED --- -- FENCE LINE GRAPHIC SCALE MEN ( IN FEET ) t IuaL = IGO ft. To the best of my knowledge & belief 1, is plat properly depicts the results of a survey onducte.' under my supervision as outlined in the 'rotes above, bused on our analysis of record: & physic. evidence found. Existing boundaries sh m are it subs torl�ol conforrnonce with the recur: This p;. is in s,-tantial cc -nrmonce with 27 4 1403. VT. L 17 SITE ENGINEER: f CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC 10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, Vt 0540: 802-864-2323 FAX:802-8642271 .0b: www.Cea-H.Com [D _._ m 20 - - RIGa1Y R[3 _ DRAWN PJM / JLM cn- JLM APPRovED TRC PROJECT: SPEAR MEADOWS SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT IN _J LOCATION MAP Nat To ScaN R6 MON PLAT of SURVEY Lands of SPEAR MEADOWS, INC. 1340 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT DATE DRAWING NMIBER MAR 24, 2009 Dx1cwAL SCALE � � ° O 1"=100' PROJ. 1140. 02250 s i - a r s • — 0 •� j;.� ` �,.:.. "x&�� e�y�y, . 7•Y:. t'", � SS ..� :-. _:'. :�u.� �."a��.i� , o e aye � ¢�. �� �.;-� ��� � i yr �•!.:��' � Y'vw:'��.. > � ,;o,�.• .' / Kill - •> . � p � T {" � ,�• �.' �' ��� it �� ' �� w � _ , :., � � c, �� t`: � ,: '•� �, °wM/ a "`M�. d�' - 'P. I�" [ E'�:� i it F rya�y � \ ® .�t �+.. �r ly L r -• ter; . � � 9 �"'�.�.x-:.ter f {uI ^, �X:--•. w � tc lid M /A �F a T. J. Boyle Associates,.LLC . . Ic Farrell '• -.35 .� CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: November 13, 2009 drb\sub\farrell\Spea rkMead ows\sketch_seq.doc Plans received: September 3, 2009 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 nda # 5 Meeti date: November 12, 2009 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer/Landscape Architect Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Tax Parcel 1640-01350 10 Mansfield View Lane SEQ Zoning District - South Burlington VT 05403 Neighborhood Residential Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Zone D TJ Boyle Associates LLC 26.94 acres 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (irb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch seq Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street The Development Review Board heard the first sketch plan review on October 6, 2009 (minutes not yet available) and continued the project to November 17, 2009. The applicant has not submitted any revised plans to the staff at this time. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 3, 2009 and have the following comments. The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major issues and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Additional items, including but not limited to recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, adequacy of parking, etc, certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Associate Planner Cathyann Larose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, all herein after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these very significant issues: For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this stage of the project: density, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and design. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 92 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 93 units within the PUD. Therefore, a total of 62 development rights shall be needed. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch sea Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 62 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right of way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway as part of the preliminary plat application. A 60 foot road right of way and pedestrian connection is proposed to the University -owned parcel to the north. Staff finds this acceptable at this time. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFI ,URAT►ON Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board should discuss this matter and determine whether or not they agree. They should give clear guidance to the applicant on this point. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This criterion is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board should discuss this item and determine whether or not they are willing to waive this requirement. The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drblsub\spearmeadows\sketch seg setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted preliminary sketches which illustrate the general layout of the proposed duplexes and triplexes. The applicant states that the "new duplex structures are designed as a two-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street." Furthermore, the applicant states that "the homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction." At this stage in the process, the design proposed by the applicant appears to meet the goals and objectives of the design standards of the Southeast Quadrant enumerated within the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends more detailed, smaller scale sketches of the proposed buildings at the preliminary plat level. Still, staff has included he text of the regulations with respect to the Southeast Quadrant in this report should the Board wish to address any of the items at this stage, or to get a better understanding of those issues to be later discussed. The applicant is proposing some amount of open areas. However, these areas are predominantly wetlands and will not be useable by the residents of the area or by the residents of the City. They do help to accomplish the goal of open space areas. The applicant should prepare a plan for the ongoing maintenance and management of these areas. Furthermore, staff is concerned about the lack of park lands to serve as an amenity for all residents of the PUD. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one - quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The applicant has not proposed any park space; staff does not find that the requirements of this section are being met. The applicant should work with the Planning Staff and the Recreation Staff to better achieve compliance with these criteria. The 93 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 72.54 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 231). This increased traffic is neither exorbitant nor insignificant. The City requisitioned a corridor study of Spear Street in November, 2004. This corridor study identified several serious concerns within the corridor, most significantly of which is the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street (partial copy attached). It also outlined several recommendations for improvements along the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sublspearmeadows\sketch seq corridor and at this intersection. Staff recommends a traffic analysis for the proposed development which would include this intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. The Board should then discuss any need for technical review of said analysis. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for some development. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. Section 9.08 C(5) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states that "a mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types." The proposed plans identify both duplexes and triplexes. The Board should discuss the plan's conformance with this goal. Pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sublspearmeadows\sketch seg As previously stated, staff has included the text of the regulations in the report for the reference of the Board members. Again, Staff urges the Board to discuss those items which affect the fundamental layout of the site, with other issues to be addressed at the formal hearings of Preliminary and Final Plat Plan review. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ- NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub- district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. Description and Regulatory Effect. The regulatory text of this Article is supplemented with illustrations, officially known as the Regulating Plan, illustrating the dimensional and design concepts. The Regulating Plan contains basic land planning and neighborhood design criteria that are intended to foster attractive and walkable neighborhood development patterns. Design criteria and guidelines set forth below are intended to address basic neighborhood design relationships related to scale, connectivity, and overall orientation that promote pedestrian friendly development as follows in Section 9.07(C). The Regulating Plan is an illustrative guide; it does not have the same force of regulation as does the text in this bylaw. However, the Development Review Board will refer to both the Regulating Plan and the text of this section in its project reviews B. General Provisions (1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ- VR and SEQ-VC sub -districts. (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub -district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drh\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch sea (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian -scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian -friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sublspearmeadows\sketch sea (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.09 SEQ-NR Sub -District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch seg (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on center. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING -- drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch seg C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). A minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. Rear Alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes, and townhouses. (5) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed at the sketch plan level before proceeding to a more detailed, engineered plan to be submitted as part of the preliminary plat application. Respp,ctfully submitted, C thya LaRose, Associate Planner L Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant To the City of South Burlington Design Review Board October 12, 2009 From William and Maurene Gilbert 1400 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont Regarding Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42 The DRB and the acting Chair seemed to question the authority of the DRB to disallow an Application submitted for DRB review under the Zoning By-laws of the City. What is the point of having the DRB review a project, if it has no discretion to deny the project that fails to meet the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan? The review might as well be done at the administrative level. The Purpose of the Memorandum is to comment upon statements made at the initial Sketch Plan Hearing on the above referenced matter and is submitted as supplemental material in addition to the letter and memo submitted to the DRB at that hearing. Jurisdiction: The project, Sketch Plan Application SD 098-42, requires PUD approval under Section 9.13 of the SEQ district regulations. For a PUD involving non-contiguous parcels of land, the DRB has discretion to determine whether a transfer of development rights is appropriate under Section 9.13(C) of the Land Development Regulations (the DRB "may" grant approval). This project is also subject to the general PUD review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations. Burden of Proof: It is the responsibility of the Applicant to demonstrate that the Project meets the standards of the zoning by laws of the City of South Burlington. The Applicant must prove that the project meets these standards; the burden is not on opponents to disprove it. Neighborhood Density 2 The area the Applicant seeks to develop is designated for 2 units per acre in the Goals Based Plan found at Appendix E of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The DRB ought to exercise its discretion to satisfy the purposes of the TDR rules, i.e., to direct development to those areas of the SEQ designated for development in the Plan. The Goals Based Plan has a specific and enforceable numerical density standard of two units per acre. The legal rule is clear. Where a municipality has chosen to incorporate the city plan into its bylaws, and that city plan has a specific standard to guide enforcement, such standards have regulatory force. Applicant seeks to ignore the specific two -acre rule. This he cannot do and the DRB may not approve. The DRB ought to exercise its discretion to satisfy the I purposes of the TDR rules, i.e., to direct development to those areas of the SEQ designated for development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Application and Plan Ignore the City By laws: There are very specific standards that must be met. Our prior Memorandum and letter to the DRB sets for numerous specific grounds for the rejection of the Applicant's Application and proposed Plan. Indeed, the Plan itself is so amorphous that it was changed at the time of the Applicant's presentation from a request for 92 units to a request for 87 units. In addition to our prior arguments, we urge the DRB to consider the following: 1. Design Criteria -- The Applicant does not offer even a pretense of compliance with the extensive requirements found at Chapter 9 of the By laws. These By laws establish specific design requirements for the Neighborhood Residential sub -district that are not met by the Applicant's Plan. Applicant has failed to even attempt to meet these requirements in its Application by simply stating on the Application "TBD". The variety of supporting materials presented by the Applicant does not suffice because they ignore the By law design criteria. These Plans themselves were changed by the Applicant at the hearing. General references to minimum curb cuts and "Traditional Neighborhood Design" (an undefined standard that is not in the By laws) do not and cannot replace the specific standards of the Chapter 9 By law. For example, Section 9.08(A) (1) states that development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 feet in length. The Farrell plan shows a linear development extending more than 2000 feet into the property, with no blocks. It is the residential equivalent of strip commercial development. The Applicant has made no effort to meet its burden of demonstrating compliance with these standards. Applicant has provided no list of exemptions that would be required. The Applicant is completely rewriting the design criteria with a few glossy photo shopped images of how it wants to build 93 units. 2. Compatibility with PUD review standards in Section 15.18 -- The general PUD review standards in Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations require specific findings of fact by the DRB on numerous very specific design criteria for which the Applicant has provided no information. In fact some criteria are demonstrably violated by the Application, for example: Section 5.18 (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan The Project is not even remotely compatible with the existing patterns or the patterns set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant admits that fact. 2 f Spear Meadows - Suggested discussion items for Nov. 17, 2009 meeting Version 1.0 1. Informal discussion about TDR's using the SEQ zoning map (5 minutes - John) prior to Developer's presentation DRB discussion items, after the Developer's presentation of any changes 2. Plan items needing DRB concurrence a. Allow cul-de-sac and concur on length (cul-de-sacs are discouraged & limited in length) b. Provide for on street parking 0111-1 c. Allow on street parking for park(s) vs. created spaces at the park(s) 3. Discuss plan conflicts with LDR's: identify show stoppers, if any a. Orientation of the units re Regulating Plan - Building Orientation: Primary entries fo single family and multifamily buildings must face the street." 6) 6 b. Regulating Plan requires minimum of 35% of translucent windows & surfaces should be oriented to the south. c. As a Specific Standard, facades are to be varied enough to avoid monotony, and "A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments." Objective is to create a "vibrant" neighborhood. d. "The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area,...." [Criteria for Review of PUDs/ General Standards, Section 15.18 A (5)]. Building design: "...reinforce a pedestrian -friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design," [9.07 C (3)]. e. Planting strip 5 feet wide between sidewalk and the road - a Specific Standard Yr, 4. Items the DRB will require, in the realm of "good planning" (?) a. Rec. path on east boundary & mid -block connector from street to Rec. path ®� b. One or two parks ? Public or private ownership? it/'1hting4' c. No incursion into eases terly 50 foot rear yard setba�k-d"eVs%ce/, d. Developer must do a WORST CASE, TOTAL traffic analysis: 1.) Include traffic going north from Vail Dr. development 2.) Include traffic from the possible 11 additional units on Gary Farrell's property ( — 3 acres developed at 4 units per acre). Evaluate traffic based on full build out at 4 units/acre for the whole 26.1 acres ? 3.) Assessment to include impact on Swift & Spear intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. 4.) Mitigation at entrance to accommodate ALL of the projected changes/ improvements to Spear Street (space for full bike lane on the east side of Spear St.) e. Ground delineation of wetland buffer boundary f. Put some of the development on the west side of the retention pond (?) (higher density ?), including possible boundary line adjustment to the west with Gary Farrell parcel ? DRB wants (?) a. Rotate units near Spear Street to reduce building massing evident from Spear. St. b. Flip the location of the retaining pond and the units on the cul-de-sac (possibly greater density next to retention pond (?)), or reorient the buildings on the westerly side of the cul-de-sac, preferably making them single family dwellings or 2-unit townhouses ? Spear Meadows - Suggested discussion items for Nov. 17, 2009 meeting Version 1.0 6. Open issues a. When build the Vail Dr. link (?) At the outset, bond for the cost to complete the entire �� connection to Vail Dr. If the developer does not complete the project (for whatever reason): (i) the developer will construct a terminating cul-de-sac, as appropriate; (ii) the City will cash the bond; and (iii) the City will complete the connection at a later date (?). b. How and when to pay for building the spur road to the North? Require gravel road base now, installed to City standards: grass over; extend water and sewer to the northern property line ? DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 3 There is now only one accessory unit (in the original house) with two single family units. Mr. Provost said he is asking for relief from erosion control. Mr. Belair said there is not much construction left to cause erosion. This would be dealt with at final plat. Mr. Provost showed the location of parking spaces. He said they are asking for footprint lots. Staff had no issue with this. Mr. Belair explained that the owner of the house must live in the house because it has an accessory unit in it. Mr. Stuono asked what is preventing this from being a straight subdivision. Mr. Belair said he didn't know. It would look the same from the street. Mr. Provost said he would like to look into that. Mr. Behr said that can be done at final plat. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-41 of Robert L. Provost subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two- family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 three -unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Farrell noted they had received approvals in August of 2006. He showed the parcel which is comprised of 3 lots. Healsoshowed the road plan which was proposed in 2006. There was a cul de sac on Vale Drive which had an easement to the city for a connection to this property. He also indicated that there had been requests from neighbors for landscaping. Mr. Farrell then showed the intersection with Spear St. that will not change with the plan. The existing curb cut to the Farrell house would be removed, and access would be from the extension of Vale Drive. The connection to Vale Drive would have a sidewalk. Mr. Farrell noted that originally Public Works wanted the Vale Drive cul de sac removed and T-intersection built. Mr. Farrell noted that following the 2006 approval, they ran afoul of Act 250 because of prime ag soils. They then withdrew the application. They now have an agreement with the Leduc Farm to purchase 56 development rights from them under the TDR arrangement. This will allow them 4 units per acre on this parcel. If the 93-unit plan is approved, Mr. Farrell said they would still have to purchase 6 additional TDR units from somewhere. They have an alternate plan with fewer units in the event that can't happen. DEVELOPMENT RE � IW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 4 Mr. Farrell said their plan is to serve the $200,000-$300,000 market. Structures would be from 2500 to 3000 sq. ft in the duplexes and about 4000 sq. ft. in the triplex buildings. He showed a picture of the design concept for the buildings. He said they propose to serve a diverse population. Buildings would be compatible with surrounding homes even though the existing homes are single family and this development has none of those. Buildings would be essentially 2-story with porches. Mr. Farrell then outlined the "qualities" of the proposed project, including: pedestrian friendly, garages 90 degrees from the street, preservation of site features, preservation of wetland and buffers, minimizing of pavement by clustering, street trees, private backyards for each unit, connection to the bike path, and range of housing product. Mr. Farrell showed photos of the site in various directions and also the potential rec path connections and easement. He also indicated a 1.37 acre public park. Parking for the development would consist of one parking space in front of the garages. 195 spaces are required. With the proposed plan 224 spaces would be provided in addition to 34 shared spaces at the far end of the courts. There would also be on -street parking spaces. Mr. Behr asked Mr. Farrell to review the) to Act 250 to get a designation that would or pay a mitigation fee (2 acres of mitigati ) issue. Mr Farrell said they went back them to mitigate prime ag soils off -site every acre of prime ag). He indicated they will probably pay the fee. Mr. Stuono said he would prefer to see the public park closer to denser areas, not adjacent to open space, so that it would be more usable to other neighborhoods. He also suggested an area for a community_ iiarden. Mr. Farrell said Mr. Conner asked them to look into the best practices for storm water management to possibly reduce the size of the pond. This could result in space for a garden, etc. Mr. Knudsen asked if the applicant anticipates any off -site traffic mitigation. Mr. Farrell said that would depend on the traffic study. Mr. Knudsen asked if the applicant felt the project meets the requirements for "orientation to the street." Mr. Farrell said he felt it was a thoughtful design. He said some people like to live on a street, others don't. The benefit of this design is fewer curb cuts. Also in this design neighbors face each other for a courtyard feeling, and houses have porches that face each other. Mr. Belair said he felt this plan meets the spirit of the requirement. Mr. Gilbert showed the location of his parcel and gave the Board a letter outlining his DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 5 concerns. He said he hadn't opposed the earlier 30+ unit proposal as he counted on the DRB and Act 250. Now it seems that density has swallowed everything. He asked the DRB to use judgment as he felt the problems with density outweigh the benefits. He said this project will overwhelm the quality of life and reduce existing property values. He felt the density is totally out of character with anything in this part of the city and that it will wind up looking like "a strip mall" built on a slab. He felt it was essentially an apartment complex which is 6 times more dense than South Village (the acreage is 12% of the South Village acreage). Mr. Gilbert felt the Vale Drive connection should be done immediately, not after the 5 1 " unit. Mr. Behr then asked Mr. Skiff to read his letter to the Board into the Record. Mr. Skiff indicated he was reserving his right to appeal. He felt the application was not complete and did not conform with the city plan or state law. He felt this was an apartment complex in a single family neighborhood. He also felt the Vale Drive connection should occur before the project is built. Mr. Scollins, an abutter, said he was involved with the first proposal. He felt the main issue is incompatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. He said that when they bought their home 35 years ago, they chose to live in the "country," and they felt the city supported that. When the zoning was changed, they were toil the DRB would "reconcile interests of developers and residents." He felt this is not the appropriate place for an apartment complex. Mr. Van Koerring said he wasn't opposed to the original development. His main concern with this one is traffic. He said at 8 a.m. it is now an impossible situation, and South Village isn't even fully developed. Mr. Cimonetti, who lives across the street from the proposed project, felt the applicant's analogy to "rural homes" is wrong as carriage houses are above 3-car garages. He felt this plan reminds him in design of "pictures of trailer parks." Mr. Cimonetti also noted that the proposed "public park" is actually smaller than the lawn that is being preserved on Gary Farrell's property. Mr. Young thanked Mr. Farrell for hosting a community meeting. He felt the neighborhood impact is clear. Parking is also a concern to him. He felt this would become a prime area for UVM rentals and all that that would bring. Mr.Young said he supported the original proposal but feels this is "over the top." Mr. Hubbard, who lives opposite the entrance to the proposed development, felt there was safety issue regarding the number of cars and bicycles. He noted that going north, bikes are in the travel lane with cars, and most days there are hundreds of cyclists. Mr. Kleh, an abutter, said the wetland would be surrounded by this project, and this year the area was very wet. He also felt all the wildlife would be wiped out. He asked if the units would have to be owner -occupied. Mr. Behr said the DRB can't require that. DEVELOPMENT RE , .,iW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 6 Ms. Dopp said this is very close to the East Woods area where there is a lot of wildlife. She felt that the more the gateways to the Southeast Quadrant are closed off, the more access to wildlife is closed. She didn't feel the real intent of TDR's was to build out in areas such as this. Ms. Walker asked why when they couldn't get the single family homes through Act 250 did they go in this direction. Mr. Farrell said they no longer want to serve the $500,000 to $1,000,000 market, and it costs too much to mitigate prime ag soils. Mr. Chamberlain noted there are 28 houses on Vale Drive. This would quadruple that number. He said they moved to their home so their children could live in an open environment. a Mr. Bresee said the Rec Path Committee is pleased to see the path along the east side of the property. He stressed that it is essential thaf ae, design ,parameters of the Spear Street Q study be adhered to.h Mr. Church said he wasn't keen to have the road connen. He noted there is already a water pressure problem at Pinnacle. He said the plan remmahim of "bowling alley ,.. homes.".w , The President of the Pinnacle Board said he hoped the DRB was listening to what neighbors are saying Ike drn't feel that TDR's were meant "to keep part of the city open and rape anotherpart Mr. Walcott said he and *,," create a nightmare. He said #,ri Nowland Farm Road. Ms. O'Shea asked whether there Dopp said she didn't feel South 1 Chittenden County. of this property, but he felt the plan would veto be traffic lights at this intersection and at was a need for housing in South Burlington. Ms. ,ton has to absorb all the development in Mr. Behr said South Burlington doesn't have growth limitations. The DRB upholds the regulations as they are set forth by the Planning Commission and City Council. He said he would prefer to continue the Sketch Plan hearing and allow the DRB to meet with the City Attorney regarding regulations about TDRs and the discretion the Board has. Other members favored this as well. Mr. Knudsen said he would like to "digest" this plan before making suggestions to the applicant. Mr. Donahue asked the Board to ask the City Attorney whether this development can be held up until the Spear/Swift intersection is redesigned and built. A member of the audience asked what is within the Board's power and how a developer DEVELOPMENT REV L BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2009 PAGE 7 can go ahead with something that is not in the spirit of what the "people" want. Mr. Behr explained that the Board has very little right to deny a project that fits within the regulations. If they do, and if it then goes to Court, the city would have no case. Mr. Seff, President of Swift Estates, asked if there has ever been a project built using TDRs. Mr. Belair said there has. Ms. Quimby then moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 Of Gary Farrell et al until 17 November 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4 %,", 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-43 of O'Brien Family LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of subdividing a 64.51 acre parcel into nine lots ranging in size from 1.5 acres to 23.1 acres, 200 Old Farm Road & Kimball Avenue: Ms. O'Brien showed the location of the area. She noted there are 3 zones within the parcel. Lot #1 is zoned C-1, Lots #2-8 are zoned I-C, and Lot #9 is R-1. No development is planned for lot #9 at this time. Mr. Homestead indicated they are proposing a new city street ending in a cul de sac with future connection to Tilley Drive. He showed the location of this on an aerial photo. They are approximating the intent of the road on the official city map. They have reasons for not wanting it where it is on the map. 'Their proposal for the road would skirt an area of ledge so there would be less slope and less blasting. Mr. Homestead showed existing curb cuts. They are proposing one additional curb cut to access lot #1. Lot #8 would be accessed off the new road. Plans for this will be submitted to the Fire Chief. : Mr. Knudsen questioned how curb cuts line up with those across the street. Mr. Homestead said there is a Class 2 wetland across from the curb cut on the opposite side of the road and a very steep slope across from another curb cut. Ms. LaRose noted that when Exit 12B is built, there could be a light in this area. Access should be lined up with the location of that light as there could be significant traffic in the area. Ms. O'Brien stressed the amount of ledge involved. Mr. Behr said the Board has to be sure that in the future this road won't be major issue for the city. Mr. Behr said the Board will also want to see a potential plan for build -out. The applicant wouldn't be held to it, but the Board needs an idea about potential sharing of accesses, etc. The Board agreed to let the applicant go on to preliminary plat with the understanding that the Board would rule on whatever the applicant proposes to deal with issues raised. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-46 of Burlington Properties Limited Partnership for a planned unit development to subdivide a 77.6 acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 4.9 acres to 38.6 acres, 85 Meadowland Drive (Dynapower): DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; E. Knudsen, G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Cimonetti, D. Young, S. Dooley, K. Donahue, E. Farrell, M. Young, M. Dufresne, B. Gilbert, S. Dopp, T. Kleh, W. Charish, M. Pitt, M. Scollins, P. Walcott, D. Warshaw 1. Other Business & Announcements: No issues were raised. 2. Final Plat Application #SD-09-47 of John Larkin to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of five multi -family dwellings totaling 160 units and a 40-unit congregate housing facility. The amendment consists of allowing the footings of the building to encroach into the front setback requirement and the Interstate Highway Overlay District, 326 Quarry Hill Road: Ms. Dufresne showed the location of the building. She noted that the encroachments will be 2' 6" in front and 1' 2" in the rear. The footings will not be visible from the surface. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-47 of John Larkin subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-09-63 of Burlington International Airport to construct two additional parking levels to an existing three -level parking garage to accommodate 1370 vehicles,1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had requested a continuance until 1 December. e. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Site Plan Application #SP-09-63 of Burlington International Airport until 1 December 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two-family dwelling, and 3) constructing 22 three -unit multi -family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: DEVELOPMENT REJEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 2 Mr. Dinklage explained the history of Southeast Quadrant zoning. He showed the area that is to be left open as two significant wildlife corridors. This includes a lot of privately owned land which lost the ability to develop on that land. In exchange, the city gave these land owners the right to develop those units elsewhere in the Southeast Quadrant via the TDR process. The property in question is one of those "receiving areas." Mr. Farrell said he had no new information for the Board. The Board then reviewed a list of items needing DRB concurrence, as follows: A. allowing a cul de sac and concurring on its length Mr. Dinklage noted the city will probably want a right-of-way to the property line. He also noted that the proposed length of the cul de sac is 700 feet to the circle. Mr. Belair said the recommended maximum length is 200 feet. Mr. Stuono said he does not favor the cul de sac but feels the land should remain open since it is adjacent to an NRP area. He showed the area he felt should remain open. Mr. Knudsen said the reason for the short cul de sac requirement is to allow for "neighborhoods," and 700 feet doesn't do that. He indicated he would not want a 700 foot cul de sac. Mr. Dinklage noted there will be a connection to the Gilbert property which will make that a shorter cul de sac. Mr. Farley said he was comfortable with the request. Ms. Quimby said she agrees with Mr. Knudsen. Mr. Gilbert said he does not want that connection and he doesn't want the 700-foot road. Mr. Dinklage noted there was not a majority of the Board in favor of the cul de sac, but two Board members are not present. B. Provide for on -street parking Members were OK with this. C. Allow on -street parking for the park vs. created spaces at the park Members favored on -street parking. D. Conflicts with Land Development Regulations: It was noted that the regulations require that primary entries for single and multi -family buildings must face the street. DEVELOPMENT REJEW BOARD l 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 3 Mr. Knudsen said 60% of the units do not meet this requirement, and that is a show - stopper for him as it was not what the regulations intended. Mr. Stuono liked the east -west orientation of the buildings but felt the entrances should be oriented to the street. Ms. Quimby and Mr. Dinklage agreed. Mr. Farrell said facing the buildings to the street would result in more curb cuts. He noted that each building has a front porch that faces the street, so that what you don't get is a bunch of garages dominating the streetscape. Members indicated they had heard loud and clear from the Planning Commission that they wanted a specific design with very few waivers. They feel garages should be pushed back from the street. The goal is to get people to the street by orienting the buildings to the street. The applicant indicated that in the design they are presenting in each situation each entry faces 5 other entries in a courtyard setting. E. Park(s): Mr. Dinklage asked if there is another proposal for a small "pocket park" in addition to what is shown. Mr. Farrell said he wouldratherlook for a single location, possibly something larger than what is currently proposed. Board members agreed they would prefer one larger park area. Mr. Conner noted that the Recreation Director has requested a public park. Members agreed this park should be public. F. Incursion into Easterly Setback: Members agreed this should not happen. G. Traffic Analysis: Mr. Dinklage said it would be prudent to do a "worst case" traffic study, including estimated traffic from a development on the Gilbert property. He reminded the applicant that all recommendations from the Spear Street study should be taken into consideration. With regard to a connection to Vale Drive, Mr. Belair said staff supports a public street connection as shown. Members generally supported the through street. H. Requirement for a Mix of Structures: Mr. Dinklage said he didn't feel the plan meets the intent of the standard. Mr. Farrell noted there are a lot of duplex buildings in the area where you can't tell your unit unless DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 4 you can see the number. Mr. Dinklage said the intent is for that not to happen. Mr. Farrell said there were projects built last year where all the units are the same. Mr. Dinklage said they were approved before the standard was changed. He suggested a mix of single and multi -family units facing the street. Mr. Stuono asked how many buildings types there are in the proposed development. Mr. Farrell said there are "front houses," "back houses," and "carriage houses." He felt there is more variety in his plan than in anything built in the last 4-5 years. Mr. Dinklage said what he sees is a "basic building outline" even though the porches and windows are moved around a bit. I. Ground Delineation of Wetland and Wetland Buffer Boundary: Mr. Dinklage said there must be fencing or some physical indication of the boundary. Mr. Farrell said he understood that. Mr. Dinklage asked if the applicant would consider utilizing space near the retention pond for some of the units and for access to the Gilbert property. Mr. Farrell said he was more open to putting units there than an access to the Gilbert property. Mr. Stuono didn't feel the access was necessary as it as not a natural assumption that the Gilbert property will be developed. Mr. Farley agreed. Mr. Dinklage suggested rotating the units near Spear Street so there isn't so much massing visible from Spear St. Mr. Stuono agreed. Mr. Farrell said he would look at that. He said the buildings in this project are not bigger than existing houses. J. Bonding for the Road to Vale Drive: Mr. Dinklage said that in the event the road is not completed, the city would want the ability to cash the bond to complete the road. Regarding the spur to the north, Mr. Dinklage said it may be possible to ask the developer to put in a gravel road base and grass it over. Mr. Farrell said he was happy to provide a right-of-way, but he hated to build a road to nowhere. Mr. Cimonetti recommended that the north/south rec path be constructed to the northern property line. Mr. Farrell said he will do that. K. 5-foot green space between sidewalk and road: Mr. Dinklage noted the requirement for a 5-foot green space between the sidewalk and the road. The applicant cited the problem with on -street parking and people having to tromp through snow banks to get to the sidewalk. Mr. Cimonetti noted that the Rec Path Committee strongly favors the 5-foot separation. DEVELOPMENT RE'4W BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 5 They don't want "dueling snowplows" with snow being thrown back and forth from the sidewalk to the street and vice versa. Mr. Gilbert noted that the triplex buildings are larger than existing homes. He suggested a requirement that the multi -family buildings be owner -occupied. He also indicated that he opposed the TDR process. Mr. Charish asked whether the spur to the north should be accounted for in the "worst case" traffic study. He also cited a problem with "massing" in the northwest corner of Spear Street and with a lack of consistency with surrounding property. Mr. Conner noted the regulations state that consistency must be with the "planned development pattern of the area," not necessarily with what currently exists. Ms. Pitt said there are now single family homes, not duplexes and triplexes. Mr. Dinklage said that is what exists today not what is planned. He stressed that the city is changing, and there is "infill" which is encouraged by the zoning regulations. Mr. Farrell said there are actually substantially more multi -family units than single family homes in the area. He cited the Village at Dorset Park, Fairway, Watertower Village, Golf Course Road, Overlook at Spear, and other developments. He said it is the people who live in the buildings that make up a community, not the buildings. Mr. Cimonetti asked whether the Board is going to require approval for the design of every building. Mr. Dinklage said that in the past the Board has asked for a group of renderings and asked the applicant to attest that he would build within that range. Mr. Cimonetti felt that could lead to blocks of similar buildings if the development is market driven and built in phases. Mr. Scollins said he felt it was nonsense to suggest other developments are analogous to what is proposed. He felt this is a "lot of units squeezed between very large lots." He noted that he had suggested to Gary Farrell that there be an effort to preserve this land but got no response. He also said he understood it is not within the DRB's power to do anything about this. He added that if the project is approved, the citizens will sue and the city will lose. He felt the project serves only the Farrells and no one else in the city. Mr. Donahue cited the inadequacy of the Spear/Swift intersection and asked if the project can be turned down because of that. Mr. Dinklage said it can't be turned down; however, mitigation can be required. Mr. Donahue said he thought it would take millions of dollars to fix that intersection and that it should be done before this project is built. Mr. Charish said if owner -occupancy can't be required, could there be a limit on the number of vehicles per unit. He felt this should be considered in the traffic study. Mr. Dinklage said the DRB and the city's traffic expert will be aware of that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 6 Mr. Walcott felt the connection to Vale Drive would dramatically change the neighborhood. He asked that the affect of this be mitigated by making the connection one way and leaving the circle to slow traffic. Mr. Kleh noted that all of the proposed houses surround the wetland, which is home to many animals. He felt this habitat will be destroyed. Mr. Warshaw cited passages in the Comprehensive Plan which indicate that existing neighborhoods should be protected from "out of character" transition development and that higher -density, affordable units should be located where services and amenities are available. Members felt it was appropriate to continue the sketch plan hearing to allow the applicant to respond to Board concerns. Mr. Farrell asked to continue after the new year. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 until 5 January 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Clerk .t . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; E. Knudsen, G. Quimby, R. Farley, B. Stuono Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Cimonetti, D. Young, S. Dooley, K. Donahue, E. Farrell, M. Young, M. Dufresne, B. Gilbert, S. Dopp, T. Kleh, W. Charish, M. Pitt, M. Scollins, P. Walcott, D. Warshaw 1. Other Business & Announcements: No issues were raised. 2. Final Plat Application #SD-09-47 of John Larkin to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of five multi -family dwellings totaling 160 units and a 40-unit congregate housing facility. The amendment consists of allowing the footings of the building to encroach into the front setback requirement and the Interstate Highway Overlay District, 326 Quarry Hill Road: Ms. Dufresne showed the location of the building. She noted that the encroachments will be 2' 6" in front and l' 2" in the rear. The footings will not be visible from the surface. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-47 of John Larkin subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-09-63 of Burlington International Airport to construct two additional parking levels to an existing three -level parking garage to accommodate 1370 vehicles, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had requested a continuance until 1 December. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Site Plan Application #SP-09-63 of Burlington International Airport until 1 December 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of. 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two-family dwelling, and 3) constructing 22 three -unit multi -family dwellings,1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 2 Mr. Dinklage explained the history of Southeast Quadrant zoning. He showed the area that is to be left open as two significant wildlife corridors. This includes a lot of privately owned land which lost the ability to develop on that land. In exchange, the -city gave these land owners the right to develop those units elsewhere in the Southeast Quadrant via the TDR process. The property in question is one of those "receiving areas." Mr. Farrell said he had no new information for the Board. The Board then reviewed a list of items needing DRB concurrence, as follows: A. allowing a cul de sac and concurring on its length vir. DaLrdage noted the city will probably waist a right -of way to the property line. He also noted that the proposed length of the cul de sac is 700 feet to the circle. Mr. Belair said the recommended maximum length is 200 feet. Mr. Stuono said he does not favor the cul de sac but feels the land should remain open since it is adjacent to an NRP area. He showed the area he felt should remain open. Mr. Knudsen said the reason for the short cul de sac requirement is to allow for "neighborhoods," and 700 feet doesn't do that. He indicated he would not want a 700 foot cul de sac. Mr. Dinklage noted there will be a connection to the Gilbert property which will make that a shorter cul de sac. Mr. Farley said he was comfortable with the request. Ms. Quimby said she agrees with Mr. Knudsen. Mr. Gilbert said he does not want that connection and he doesn't want the 700-foot road. Mr. Dinklage noted there was not a majority of the Board in favor of the cul de sac, but two Board members are not present. B. Provide for on -street parking Members were OK with this. C. Allow on -street parking for the park vs. created spaces at the park Members favored on -street parking. D. Conflicts with Land Development Regulations: It was noted that the regulations require that primary entries for single and multi -family buildings must face the street. . s DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 3 Mr. Knudsen said 60% of the units do not meet this requirement, and that is a show - stopper for him as it was not what the regulations intended. Mr. Stuono liked the east -west orientation of the buildings but felt the entrances should be oriented to the street. Ms. Quimby and Mr. Dinklage agreed. Mr. Farrell said facing the buildings to the street would result in more curb cuts. He noted that each building has a front porch that faces the street, so that what you don't get is a bunch of garages dominating the streetscape. Members indicated they had heard loud and clear from the Planning Commission that they wanted a specific design with very few waivers. They feel garages should be pushed back from the street. The goal is to get people to the street by orienting the buildings to the street. The applicant indicated that in the design they are presenting in each situation each entry faces 5 other entries in a courtyard setting. E. Park(s): Mr. Dinklage asked if there is another proposal for a small "pocket park" in addition to what is shown. Mr. Farrell said he would rather look for a single location, possibly something larger than what is currently proposed. Board members agreed they would prefer one larger park area. --- Mr. Conner noted that the Recreation Director has requested a public park. Members agreed this park should be public. F. Incursion into Easterly Setback: Members agreed this should not happen. G. Traffic Analysis: Mr. Dinklage said it would be prudent to do a "worst case" traffic study, including estimated traffic from a development on the Gilbert property. He reminded the applicant that all recommendations from the Spear Street study should be taken into consideration. With regard to a connection to Vale Drive, Mr. Belair said staff supports a public street connection as shown. Members generally supported the through street. H. Requirement for a Mix of Structures: Mr. Dinklage said he didn't feel the plan meets the intent of the standard. Mr. Farrell noted there are a lot of duplex buildings in the area where you can't tell your unit unless • , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 4 you can see the number. Mr. Dinklage said the intent is for that not to happen. Mr. Farrell said there were projects built last year where all the units are the same. Mr. Dinklage said they were approved before the standard was changed. He suggested a mix of single and multi -family units facing the street. Mr. Stuono asked how many buildings types there are in the proposed development. Mr. Farrell said there are "front houses," "back houses," and "carriage houses." He felt there is more variety in his plan than in anything built in the last 4-5 years. Mr. Dinklage said what he sees is a "basic building outline" even though the porches and windows are moved around a bit. I. Ground Delineation of Wetland and Wetland Buffer Boundary: Mr. Dinklage said there must be fencing or some physical indication of the boundary. Mr. Farrell said he understood that. Mr. Dinklage asked if the applicant would consider utilizing space near the retention pond for some of the units and for access to the Gilbert property. Mr. Farrell said he was more open to putting units there than an access to the Gilbert property. Mr. Stuono didn't feel the access was necessary as it as not a natural assumption that the Gilbert property will be developed. Mr. Farley agreed. Mr. Dinklage suggested rotating the units near Spear Street so there isn't so much massing visible from Spear St. Mr. Stuono agreed. Mr. Farrell said he would look at that. He said the buildings in this project are not bigger than existing houses. J. Bonding for the Road to Vale Drive: Mr. Dinklage said that in the event the road is not completed, the city would want the ability to cash the bond to complete the road. Regarding the spur to the north, Mr. Dinklage said it may be possible to ask the developer to put in a gravel road base and grass it over. Mr. Farrell said he was happy to provide a right-of-way, but he hated to build a road to nowhere. Mr. Cimonetti recommended that the north/south rec path be constructed to the northern property line. Mr. Farrell said he will do that. K. 5-foot green space between sidewalk and road: Mr. Dinklage noted the requirement for a 5-foot green space between the sidewalk and the road. The applicant cited the problem with on -street parking and people having to tromp through snow banks to get to the sidewalk. Mr. Cimonetti noted that the Rec Path Committee strongly favors the 5-foot separation. { ; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2009 PAGE 5 They don't want "dueling snowplows" with snow being thrown back and forth from the sidewalk to the street and vice versa. Mr. Gilbert noted that the triplex buildings are larger than existing homes. He suggested a requirement that the multi -family buildings be owner -occupied. He also indicated that he opposed the TDR process. Mr. Charish asked whether the spur to the north should be accounted for in the "worst case" traffic study. He also cited a problem with "massing" in the northwest corner of Spear Street and with a lack of consistency with surrounding property. Mr. Conner noted the regulations state that consistency must be with the "planned development pattern of the area," not necessarily with what currently exists. Ms. Pitt said there are now single family homes, not duplexes and triplexes. Mr. Dinklage said that is what exists today not what is planned. He stressed that the city is changing, and there is "infill" which is encouraged by the zoning regulations. Mr. Farrell said there are actually substantially more multi -family units than single family homes in the area. He cited the Village at Dorset Park, Fairway, Watertower Village, Golf Course Road, Overlook at Spear, and other developments. He said it is the people who live in the buildings that make up a community, not the buildings. Mr. Cimonetti asked whether the Board is going to require approval for the design of every building. Mr. Dinklage said that in the past the Board has asked for a group of renderings and asked the applicant to attest that he would build within that range. Mr. Cimonetti felt that could lead to blocks of similar buildings if the development is market driven and built in phases. Mr. Scollins said he felt it was nonsense to suggest other developments are analogous to what is proposed. He felt this is a "lot of units squeezed between very large lots." He noted that he had suggested to Gary Farrell that there be an effort to preserve this land but got no response. He also said he understood it is not within the DRB's power to do anything about this. He added that if the project is approved, the citizens will sue and the city will lose. He felt the project serves only the Farrells and no one else in the city. Mr. Donahue cited the inadequacy of the Spear/Swift intersection and asked if the project can be turned down because of that. Mr. Dinklage said it can't be turned down; however, mitigation can be required. Mr. Donahue said he thought it would take millions of dollars to fix that intersection and that it should be done before this project is built. Mr. Charish said if owner -occupancy can't be required, could there be a limit on the number of vehicles per unit. He felt this should be considered in the traffic study. Mr. Dinklage said the DRB and the city's traffic expert will be aware of that. ' Toll ffi�l EW XV south.url ftt" e., Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V. .§4��� §4471 c). HEARING DATE: UI/• (/C� PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING AnnRFSS PR(1 11=rT nr: 1A1TCDCCT r Lloo �.,. C CIL 2- ov \ OZ SIAS AQ CLM�k 3oZ S f-o►ne�e��� I I l ie'l f1 t' s os 17- F i � �i Interested Persons Record and Service List V E V 0 '! .!. Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. -§ 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: WO[ Q 7 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PPO.IFrT nF 1MT1=R1=cT %fr , G�,u,►����1 I q Vale Dr. i job r5 Ca Pin aatAV, ��anr ��i�er I51 s J ocr Sl 7C/S P �r,� Vt I Cf'/7 1/ti� Ck) Ja t'�'l�'1�A' ��✓�Z�cJ�--Q F Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.&A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING AnnRFSS 13R(1 MPY nl: IAITCMCCr 0 0 t� U e VZ, V YO- i VJ U C �— _ S Vh l n-"c' K`-------- 15-Pt -' 1`2rre'll J 40A V., south-inrr- Vk NIGNP!'1' Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME N/O MAILING ADDRERR PPn 11=rT ni: 1AITCOCCT Y01 2(0 al0 mead SQear xlPoo's Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 12/28/2009 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 —1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following additional materials in connection with the continued Sketch Plan Review of the above referenced project: • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Bovle Associates, LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 12/23/09) • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (Sheet No. L101, dated 12/23/09) • Spear Meadows -Building `M' Street Elevation — by studio b architecture, Ilc (Drawing Number. M-4, dated December 28, 2009) • Spear Meadows -Building `M' Street Elevation — by studio b architecture, Ilc (Drawing Number. M-4a, dated December 28, 2009) • Solar Orientation Calculations (Excel Spreadsheet) Densitv (Section 9.05 A and 9.05 B (3 The project site contains a total of 26.19 acres having a base allowable density of 1.2 units per acre or 31 units. The parcel is located in the "SEQ-Neighborhood Residential-NR" Zoning District, which is a "receiving" area for TDR's, allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre (or 104 units), as set forth in Section 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The property owner has entered into an option agreement with Leduc Farm, Inc. for the purchase of up to 56 units of density. 1 The materials submitted herein depict a residential community that will contain a revised total of 80 dwelling units, in the following configurations: • 1 existing single-family home (Gary & Jane) —1 unit • 18 new single-family homes (detached) —18 units • 3 single carriage homes (detached, i.e. single-family homes) — 3 units • 4 double carriage homes (each containing 2 attached carriage homes) — 8 units • 13 duplexes (each containing 1 carriage home + 1 attached townhome) — 26 units • 8 triplexes (each containing 1 carriage home + 2 attached townhomes) — 24 units There are a total of 80 units contained in 47 buildings. Building Orientation - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (1) Of the 79 new dwelling units proposed, 58 units or 73.4% are oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L100. This represents an increase from our previously submitted (revised) plan that depicted 86 new units, of which only 33 units or 38.4% were oriented to the street. The very irregular shape of the parcel makes it impossible to orient all of the units to the street, while achieving the desired density. Translucent Window Orientation - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (1) As demonstrated on the attached summary of "Solar Orientation Calculations", 31 % of the total glazing, measured in square feet, is oriented to the south, which percentage could change somewhat, given that we are still at Sketch level and final design development drawings for the buildings are yet to be completed. Once again, the very irregular shape of the parcel makes it difficult to orient 35% of the glazing to the street. In some respects, this requirement is in conflict with the requirement of building orientation to the street. Mix of Housina Tvaes - LDR Section 9.08 (C) (5 As now proposed, there are 6 different housing structures ranging from single-family to triplexes, including one newly designed structure (Building `M'), being a double carriage home, which is essentially two carriage homes, back-to-back (garages below/ units above). Also, several of the townhomes have been detached from the triplex structures in order to break down the overall size of the building and create more single-family homes. Among the single-family structures, several configurations are made possible by varying the home size, roof orientation, exterior fenestration and porch design, resulting in more than 20 different home styles. 0 Page 2 The various building styles will offer a wide variety of unit sizes and layouts ranging from 1- bedroom flats of approximately 1,000 square feet to 3 or 4-bedroom townhomes of approximately 1,800 — 2,200 square feet. Street Blocks and Street Connections to AdioininA Parcels - LDR Section 9.08 (A) The street blocks range in length from 125 feet to 425 feet between intersecting streets or recreation path connections. The only the exception is the first block entering the project site from Spear Street, which measures approximately 700 feet before the first intersection. This longer block is necessitated by the presence of Class II wetlands and the associated 50 foot buffer that bisects the parcel for its entire length from north to south. The 300 foot length of street that connects Spear Meadows to the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood is not included in this calculation, as it is technically not a part of the project site. A 1,000 foot cul-de-sac shown on previous plan submissions has been eliminated. There are two shorter sections of street planned. The first measures 200 feet and ends at the property line of UVM to the north, providing a future potential connection to that undeveloped parcel. The other measures 125 feet and provides access to the public park and ends at the easterly buffer line of the wetlands. This street connection continues on to the public park area via a gravel driveway (public ROVE, also providing a potential future connection to the adjoining "Gilbert" property. Public Park Area - LDR Section 9.07 (D) At 2.25 occupants per dwelling unit and a required park area of 7.5 acres per 1,000 person population of the development, the 80 units proposed would require a park area of 1.35 acres (80 x 2.25 = 180 persons / 1,000 persons x 7.5 acres = 1.35 acres). The plan submitted today depicts a "Neighborhood Park" containing 2.7 acres (twice the required size). The public park is proposed for the area where formerly a cul-de-sac was planned to serve 17 dwelling units. The public park will be owned by the City of South Burlington and contain a full basketball court, off street parking for approximately 10 cars and a spacious passive recreation area, subject to the approval of the recreation Board, all accessible by an extension of the recreation path network. The public park was relocated from the northeast comer of the project site to an area more southerly in the development, so as to be more convenient for homeowners in the Pinnacle at Spear neighborhood to access and use. Located adjacent to the public park, is an area containing approximately 1.6 acres, set aside for use as a private community garden area for the Spear Meadows Homeowners Association. Both the public park and the community garden area adjoin a natural area that was preserved in connection with the Pinnacle at Spear development to the south many years ago, satisfying a requirement in the LDR's that open spaces be contiguous wherever possible. • Page 3 Other Site Plan Modifications After meeting with the Recreation Path Committee, their recommendations have incorporated into the plan, which include locating the recreation path along the easterly boundary line of the project site, making various connections to the street -sidewalk network within the development and eliminating the berm along Spear Street (in front of Gary's existing home), so as to accommodate a future recreation path along the east side of Spear Street. We also simplified the street design, making it uniformly 26 feet wide per city specifications, which accommodate parking on one side without delineation, and separating the sidewalk from the street by a generous green belt measuring 8 or 9 feet. DRB Meeting We intend to have our plans available on power -point for easier viewing by the DRB and the public and hope to be able to address any other areas of the LDR's that I may have overlooked in this memo. We look forward to reviewing our Spear Meadows project with the DRB at its January 5" meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information Attachments 0 Page 4 Solar Orientation Calculations: ) Spear Meadows I 1212812009 UNIT TYPE TOTAL GLAZING S.F. LEFT SIDE* STREET SIDE RIGHT SIDE* REAR SIDE sm_strt_std 238 106.5 45% 81.25 34% 50 21% 0 0% sm_strt_exp 250 106.5 43% 93.75 38% 50 20% 0 0% sm_back 268 78.75 29% 0 0% 101.3 38% 87.5 33% sm_back_detached 298 78.75 26% 30 10% 101.3 34% 87.5 29% Ig_strt_std 301 105.8 35% 120 40% 56.25 19% 18.75 6% Ig_strt_exp 286 105.8 37% 105 371016 56.25 20% 18.75 7% Ig_back 256 62 24% 0 0% 87.5 34% 106.3 42% ch_2-door_duplex (H) 134 52 39% 0 0% 30 22% 52 39% ch_3-door_duplex (P) 157 86 55% 0 0% 30 19% 41 26% ch_3-door_triplex (A) 116 86 74% 0 0% 30 26% 0 0% ch_4-bay_triplex (C) 116 86 74% 0 0% 30 26% 0 0% ch_rotated_duplex 145 0 0% 59 41% 56.25 39% 30 21% sn I fam 2-car 1 318 1106.5 33% 1117.8 37% 193.75 29% 10 0% *left/right figured from street perspective BUILDING TYPE TOTAL GLAZING S.F. SOUTH -ORIENTED GLAZING: Spear Meadow Road: Q1 714 271 38% M1 383 140 37% M2 446 179 40% P 755 150 20% L2 446 49 11% Vail Drive- East: D 684 188 27% L2 446 113 25% M2 446 113 25% M 1 383 106 28% M2 446 113 25% H 435 86 20% L2 446 113 25% M2 446 113 25% Mi 383 106 28% M2 446 113 25% M1 383 106 28% H 435 86 20% L1 383 106 28% SFD 318 94 29% Vail Drive- West: L2 446 106 24% M 1 383 107 28% Q1 714 213 30% F 610 255 42% P 755 271 36% F 610 255 42% B 673 254 38% A2 622 255 41% C 669 271 40% Q1 714 213 30% Q2 714 213 30% F 610 255 42% C 669 271 40% M21 446 1106 24% ALLBn TOTAL GLAZING S.F. TOTAL SOUTH -ORIENTED GLAZING: 17,456 5,383 31% studio b architecture • 22 church street, suite 304 • burlington, vermont 05401 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 2 Mr. Farnham-Hastell distributed photos of the park entrance. He noted he is doing this for'an Eagle Scout project. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Design Review Application #DR-09-07 of Jake Farnham-Hastell subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-09-55 of Oakwood Homeowners Association to amend a previously approved plan for two two-family dwellings. The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan, 118-124 Oakwood Drive: Ms. Lenes, a resident of the property, said she supports the plan. Mr. Dinklage said this application is to correct the plan as to what was/was not planted. He noted that staff recommends that the value of the landscaping be itemized. Mr. Belair said it is hard to tell the value of the landscaping once it is in the ground. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SD-09-55 of Oakwood Homeowners Association subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two-family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three -unit multi- family dwellings,1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: As the applicant set up his display, the DRB opened a deliberative session. Mr. Stuono said he would like to see continuous open space up to the UVM property. Mr. Dinklage read a statement on how the DRB deals with density and TDR's. He stressed that the focus is on achieving an overall good plan. He also stressed that TDR's are treated as any other density. It was noted that the proposed plan has been substantially revised. Mr. Farrell said the number of units has been reduced from 87 to 80. The road network hasn't changed much and there will still be a connection to Vale Drive. There would be a public park accessed by a short public street and a gravel road into the park. There is also a 1.6 acre piece for a community garden for the homeowners' association. The recreation path accesses the public park as well. There is also a short section of public street to the UVM property. Mr. Farrell said they have added one new building style. He showed a picture of this indicating 2 units above 2 and 3 car garages. Many of the units now face the street. Mr. Farrell said he can't get 100% of them to face the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 3 street because of the irregularity of the site. There are now 21 single family homes, 3 single carriage homes (one unit above a garage), 4 double carriage homes, 13 traditional duplexes and 8 triplexes. For the most part, blocks are less than 500 feet. The standard street is 26 feet wide with parking on one side (this is not counted in the parking plan). Mr. Farrell noted that the Rec Path Committee reminded them that they want a path on the eastern boundary, 5 feet off the line. Mr. Farrell showed connections to the path. They will pave all that is shown as rec path. There will be sidewalk on both sides of the street, except where there is rec path. The berm has been removed from in front of Gary Farrell's house. (Mr. Knudsen arrived at this point in the meeting) Mr. Dinklage felt this was a significant improvement to layout. Mr. Stuono felt the east side was OK, but the west side looked rather repetitive. He felt it could be fixed with a few minor changes. He wanted to see unit L-2 removed since it "sticks out." Mr. Farrell said this is the result of the shape of the site and their desire for a lot of variety. Mr. Farley said he was OK with it. Mr. Knudsen said he wasn't sure enough has been changed to orient buildings to the street. Mr. Behr, Mr. Knudsen and Ms. Quimby agreed with Mr. Stuono. The applicant said they would lose variety by making the proposed changes. Mr. Behr said it would allow more units to enjoy the open space. Members felt that the unit adjacent to the storm water pond should disappear. Mr. Behr suggested moving it to the west. Mr. Dinklage said the Board will ask for delineation of the wetland buffer and suggested no structure be closer than 5 feet to that buffer. Mr. Buscher said they have been trying to keep 10 feet. Mr. Dinklage suggested bringing the road width at the wetland crossing down to 18 feet. Mr. Dinklage suggested the applicant work with Public Works on the gravel access to the park to see if they are comfortable from the point of view of maintenance and plowing. Mr. Dinklage also asked that the connector road to Vale Drive be a minimum width. He strongly recommended that the Vale Drive cul de sac remain as it is for traffic calming. Ms. Quimby expressed concern that it will become a racetrack as happened at Stonehedge. The Board asked that the traffic impact study be done for full build -out, including potential for 104 units (the Gary Farrell property). Mr. Dinklage asked that the applicant work out the stub road to the north with Public Works. Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a letter to the Board from Michael Scollins dated 20 December 2009. Mr. Scollins acknowledged the great job done by the DRB, but he expressed dismay that the Board seemed to be focusing on how to accommodate Mr. Farrell's proposal. He felt the Board should be asking what is best for the neighbors and the community. He noted that the regulations say all houses must face the street. He said that if this is waived, it will "grind into a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 4 long appeal." Mr. Scollins said 80 units have been packed onto 10 acres, 23 of them behind his home and the Kleh home. He felt all he had left to do was to build a 10 or 12 foot fence all around his property. He didn't see how the Board could justify anything more than 31 units. He felt the Board has ample justification to significantly reduce the density. Mr. Barish said he felt the traffic impact could be six times higher than what is anticipated. Mr. Walcott felt the "worst case scenario" for traffic should include what could be developed on the UVM parcel and the parcel on the south side of Nowland Farm Road. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Spear Street Corridor Study does include long-term traffic projections, but the DRB can consider only traffic from this development. Mr. Cimonetti expressed concern with compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the character of the neighborhood. He cited the development of single family, duplex, and triplex units nestled in a single family neighborhood. He felt design wasn't as much of a problem as density. He said that 1.2 per acre would allow for 31 units, and 80 are proposed. There are also no multi -family structures in abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Cimonetti urged the Board to consider whether this proposal is consistent with the city's stated goal of preserving character of neighborhoods. Ms. Masterson felt there was an attempt to gloss over how "diversity of housing" can be met. She noted that Mr. Farrell says it can only be achieved by having duplexes and triplexes. She felt "South Burlington was selling its soul so one developer can make a lot of money." Ms. Dopp noted that even Mr. Farrell says the shape of the parcel is a limiting factor. She felt concerns could be addressed by having fewer buildings. She felt this is just a condo development with a few color changes. Ms. Malone was concerned that people will use the Vale Drive cul de sac as a time saving cut - through. Mr. Young asked about the requirement for units to be facing south. Ms. LaRose said the guideline is 35% of translucent windows should be oriented to the south. Mr. Young said that purpose would be defeated by changing the units on the west side of the road. Mr. Dinklage said that is perhaps true. Mr. Kleh asked what impact the 80 units would have on education, municipal services and wildlife habitat. He asked if there would be lights in the park. He also commented that he would probably want a 6-foot wall to separate his neighborhood from this development. Mr. Belair said the School Department has recently eliminated the school impact fee because developments are not having an impact on schools. Impacts on municipal services are reviewed by department heads. Mr. Conner noted that over the last decade the number of students per household has been declining. In South Burlington, student population has stayed flat over that period of time. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2010 PAGE 5 Mrs. Kleh said there is too much time being spent on whether units face the street. She felt there are too many units and too many people. - Mr. Levitz asked why there was a change from the 31 units approved to this plan. Mr. Farrell said at that time, he expected to build $600,000 homes. Now he feels that what the city needs is work -force housing. Ms. Schapiro felt that if they all work together they can get a development they can all be proud of. Mr. Warshaw asked how it was decided this density is OK. Mr. Behr said the direction the Board got from the City Attorney is that zoning for this area is up to 4 units per acre, and that drives how many TDR's the site can hold. Mr. Donahue said he realized that they can't get rid of the TDR's for this project but said he would work to see they are never used again. Mr. Farrell said he would ask to continue the sketch plan hearing. Ms. Qimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al to 16 February 2010. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review of Land Development Regulation Amendments Adopted by the City Council: Mr. Conner noted that on 21 December, the City Council adopted amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. These will take effect on 11 January 2010. Most of the amendment don't have a dramatic impact on the DRB. One, however, does. It related to how parking location is looked at on a parcel. It spells out very specifically when parking can be in front of a building but only to the minimum necessary to meet the criteria. Mr. Farley asked who determined a "unique site" exists. Mr. Conner said the DRB will make that determination with very specific guidelines. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. _Ag 2. Clerk C7�1oz/lo Date Interested Persons Record and Service List •"'MON, Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate . - compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB-must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in fiveworking days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: J'N PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING AnnRF.q-q DWI 19=f`T f1C IA1Tcnc•c1-1r si, kc/ - sp'e� s �3vwP asy o 3 �j �� �v�1 l� ✓�rI►7 ©� 3=vlrt J -e/x is �3���r�,lnAs4��s�� L V�a� ��- �„r hne�d�►s 106 Po-,r- s,sdv-m ,� 1 ea VW ell f� 3 f r n n c-c-I. b r /Y) e-a4 0 u%� j� r 1. Interested Persons Record and Service List V E9 M 04'C Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Developmertt Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24.V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant inkfive working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST io IVID �1 _ � SNt,4d lf4b e%drraWk-^ rtCk \wk- C�c rr I f / 7%✓-e!.* L O GrJ 00' ire / l t Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must bean opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the-DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, -the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: Gnf 25— 2000 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING ADDRESS PRO-iFr_T OF= 1K1T[=Q1=cr 1 ill �1vr C��r�f►, Z( VQ J17 v�[e �f L� ti wuvA r-3 PIWWA CL.e-,O�VL- V.(, ►�►� R 5¢ z, Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3).-Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: - Ict'n 'S, PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAILING AnnRFSS PPr) IP:r'T nr: 1K1Tcr3C:C r Ue 2czt- 1 r� 51 /j7 Do V\ tn--- M. t,j� k r br t � ara.h n e 122- ® i Interested Persons Record and Service List southbudingloin VEA V 0 N Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person -who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME 0l0 MAILING ADDRESS PR(7)JF(.T OF INTFRFST .5-0 Kle l Nl- e ado tweqei(ti- It y A k L J C a L L I !A1 S 1>., PC '_ A— 11 r^ c 5� WAd�(-e- U"l S- UTJ IZ� �. 'guv_�_ - Z-_ C5L?a I p spQ.':�fut/ � 5. Lim'► N L TOP �_ 2 I I i M DRB notes for 1-5-10 meeL g To be discussed by the DRB in open deliberative session before reading to the public A brief EXPLANATION of how the DRB deals with DENSITY and TDR's DENSITY 1. The staff checks the application to assure that the number of units proposed is within the density limits. 2. Then the DRB reviews the proposal regarding conformity with the LDR's and Regulating Plan guidelines in order to achieve a good development. The final number of units is determined by the ability of the developer to conform to the regulations with minimum waivers. 3. Thus, discussion focusing just on the total number of units is not appropriate. The focus is on a good overall plan. TDR's The DRB does not concern itself with where TDR's come from nor the circumstances under which they are obtained. Prior to final approval, staff and the city attorney will determine that the developer is transferring legitimate development rights and that the sending area has been sufficiently encumbered. TDR's are treated just as any other density. Further discussion of the matter of TDR's is not germane to this application and will be ruled out of order. Sketch Plan guidelines & suggestions: Reaffirm the board's desire to conform to the LDR's and Regulating Plan with minimum waivers. 1. Regarding placement of dwelling units, ALL aspects of the Regulating Plan will be considered, specifically: a) that dwellings served by a road must be oriented to the street and have a direct walkway from the front door to the street, b) orientation of windows and surfaces to the south, c) theme & variation approach to building facades, d) mix of housing types, e) open space tradeoffs. 2. Flexibility may be considered if units are clustered in the interior of the property. 3. A minimum of 5 feet must be left between a structure or paved surface and a wetland buffer. 4. Minimum width of street at wetland crossings. No parking or curbs in wetland area. 5. Connect to Vail Dr. with minimum width road (no parking), only one sidewalk to Vail Dr. on easterly side (traffic calming) 6. Strongly recommend that Vail Dr. cul du sac remain. 7. Provide curb bumpouts where rec. path crosses at the south end (traffic calming) 8. Traffic impact assessment to be done assuming possible full build out of 104 units and including public use of the park. The DRB will require independent analysis of the assessment. 9. Stub road to the north: public or private - work out with the new Dir. Public Works. The objective tonight is to give guidance so the developer can proceed to Preliminary, or be VERY CLEAR as to why this plan will not be approved. The public will be asked to limit comments and questions to matters relating to the NEW plan. BILL CIMONETTI 1393 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 December 31, 2009 MEMBERS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON I have carefully reviewed all materials made available to me with respect to the Spear Meadows PRD proposal, have attended and spoken at DRB and Planning Commission meetings, and am an abutting property owner, having resided at 1393 Spear Street since 1977. It is my strong belief that the Spear Meadows proposal is neither consistent with the City's development plans nor the character of the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be inserted. These are key criteria for development approval, and the District Environmental Board will likely rely to some extent on your and our stated opinions should the proposal ever seek Act 250 approval. As many of you know, I served many years as a member of the South Burlington City Council. On occasion I publicly cringed when the local print media referred derogatorily to South Burlington as "a city which never met a condo development it didn't like". Fortunately I was able to be as publically proud when South Burlington was commended for fostering the richness of its diversity of residential neighborhoods. This sketch plan of Spear Meadows depicts a development of 80 housing units in a mix of single, duplex, and triplex structures nestled in a neighborhood of only single family homes. This concept is still one of condominium unit development, different from but not unlike the development of Stonehedge, Overlook, and Ridgewood, and extraordinarily different from the established neighborhoods of Meadowood, Pinnacle at Spear, and Summit at Spear. The contrast of the proposal to these neighborhoods of single family homes, and to the long-standing linear neighborhood of single family homes fronting Spear Street is striking. In fact, as has been noted by the DRB, the contrast of the bulk of the development with the single family home at 1350 Spear Street, is similarly striking, although that property is included in the PUD for density, while being effectively screened from the proposed multi -family structures. It is not so much the design of the PUD that is inconsistent with the neighborhood, as it is the density within the design. The designated density for the area is 1.2 housing units per acre, somewhat greater than that which exists in the surrounding neighborhoods today, but not dramatically more dense. On the 26.1 acre site, 1.2 units per acre would allow 31 units. The sketch plan proposes 80 units, (258% of the number allowed under the zoning), by a transfer of development rights, creating a density of 3.1 units per acre. This would be accomplished by building 46 new buildings; 28 of them multi -family structures. To the best of my knowledge there are no multi -family structures in the existing abutting neighborhoods. In accordance with the current city regulations, the DRB gM, but not must, allow such a transfer of development rights, and npvdc to he assured that the proposed development is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhoods. I urge you to question whether this proposal is truly consistent with the City's intentions for the preservation of the character of its neighborhoods. Only your decisions can preserve not just the established neighborhood in which I live, but others, such as East Woods, Laurel Hill, Mayfair Park, the "orchard", et al. Respectfully, Bill Cimonetti 214 Meadowood Dr. S. Burlington, VT 05403 December 29, 2009 John Dinklage, Chair Development Review Board S. Burlington, VT Dear John, I'm writing once again regarding the Farrell Spear Meadows proposal, in anticipation that at some point in the near future a vote on the preliminary application will be taking place. I realize that the DRB has received and reviewed much correspondence on this project, and I greatly appreciate the time and work that you have all invested in this difficult issue. The minutes from the 10/6/09 DRB meeting apparently have not yet been finalized, so it's not clear to us whether all the important points that were presented at the meeting, have been recorded and assimilated. I would like to summarize the key points from the two related meetings, as I understand them. 1) The DRB is charged to exercise their best judgment as to what should be the maximum allowable density of a given project. When the comprehensive plan was drawn up, and subsequently revised, it was not practical to review in detail every developable land tract, and for that reason the DRB was constituted and charged to use their discretion in allowing development within the defined guidelines. 2) The same discretion on the part of the DRB is called for in permitting transfer of TDR's, i.e. the guidelines, as cited in David Warshaw's testimony, direct the DRB specifically to use their judgment as to how much of the maximum 4 units per acre should be allowed in a given development. That the Board disallowed any discussion of this issue at the last meeting was unfortunate, and suggested either a determination to permit maximum development, or a failure to fully understand its defined mission. 3) Contrary to the contention of Eric Farrell, his proposed development is unique, and very different from the many others he cited. The Farrell land is IMMEDIATELY adjacent to neighborhoods to the east and west, each comprised of single homes, each on 2 to 5 acres of land. The fact that the lots owned by Skiff, Grabowski, Scollins and Kleh are wooded should not belie the fact that they would be dramatically impacted by ANY development in the Farrell land. Indeed, there are presently several paths within the woods (built and maintained by me) extending from the Skiff land on the north all the way to Four Sisters Road on the south, closely paralleling the Farrell property line. These are enjoyed widely by neighbors on Spear St., Pinnacle, Four Sisters and Meadowood Drive. They would become unappealing if the proposed high density development were allowed. 4) Including Gary Farrell's 3-acre lot in the PUD, yet including none of the proposed development within it, may be technically acceptable by current rules, but it is illogical and inappropriate: it effectively allows even further increase in density elsewhere. Your suggestion at the October 6'h meeting to Eric Farrell to this effect was not heeded; the rules should be changed to disallow such gimmicks. With the proposed 12/28/09 revisions, the 80 units are compressed into about 10 acres! 5) The DRB determined that a full road access would be required from Pinnacle, largely because the park to be located within the new development should have easy public access. Until this point was made, the Board seemed to be wavering about the possibility of allowing a connection that would only be accessible to emergency vehicles; I would strongly urge you to reconsider on this point. The proposed park land does not afford good views, and is unlikely to attract residents of other neighborhoods. More importantly, preserving the quiet environment in Pinnacle by not allowing thru traffic should be an overriding consideration, more so because the existence of that right-of-way was never adequately promulgated as Pinnacle was being developed, or subsequently (see my correspondence with the DRB and with Chuck Hafter in 2004-2005). 6) The neighbors' strong opposition to this development is not just another case of "NIMBY". When we first learned of the Farrell plans to develop the field in 2003, we conveyed to them and to the DRB our willingness to offer recreation path access to the Meadowood Drive neighborhood, via a path between my yard and the Klehs. At that point, we naively assumed that the Farrells would only be allowed to build about 12 single family units, to keep the development compatible with those adjacent. We also proposed that Gary consider selling the land to the neighbors or to the SBLT, so that it could be donated to the City for a park, or to UVM for (continued) farming. As you know, the Farrells never responded to our request, and the DRB granted permission to build 31 units. At that point we withdrew our offer for recreation path access, to protect the privacy and security that we thought we had guaranteed when we purchased our lots many years ago. 7) It is clear from the guidelines that the DRB is expected to balance the desires of developers with those of residents, and that it DOES have discretion to limit development, and is by no means obligated to allow the full 4 units per acre. To allow anything approaching that density would dramatically alter the character of the whole area, and have a devastating negative impact on all the surrounding neighborhoods. It makes no sense to push for maximum density at the expense of altering the essence of the area, or indeed of the entire City. The proposed revisions in the plan submitted on 12/28/09 do little to change this. 8) The ideal density that the neighbors would find appropriate would be 12 units, slightly more than the density to the east and west. The MAXIMUM density that they would accept would be the 31 units that the DRB approved previously. Although this area is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as a "receiving district", close scrutiny makes clear that density beyond 1.2 units per acre would be grossly incompatible with ALL surrounding neighborhoods. I would like to reemphasize the fact that the neighbors (and Megan Emery, the City Councillor who spoke at the joint Planning Commission-DRB meeting) feel strongly that your first allegiance should be to protect your residents and the integrity of your City, NOT to accommodate developers or prospective new residents. 9) Were my interests alone at stake, I wouldn't be fighting so vigorously. I've bordered that field, and enjoyed its views, serenity, wildlife and recreational benefits for 35 years. Precisely because I do know it so well, I'm loathe to see it desecrated at the expense of our neighbors and our City, for all time. In the best of all worlds, this land would have been set aside for a City park (not the meager space offered by the Farrells). At the least, the neighbors might have been given right of first refusal, in their desire to direct the land's destiny, and the City might consider offering this option for other land parcels. My "second home", where my daughter's family has resided for the past 10 years, is Madison, Wisconsin, and their preservation of closely -spaced park lands is exemplary, and puts us to shame_ 10) The small accrual in the tax base that a high -density development will afford, would be largely offset by reduced values of surrounding properties. If DRB members have received as many comments as I have regarding this project, they appreciate the strong opposition felt by neighbors and other townspeople alike. We all appreciate that your job is difficult, but feel there is ample justification to turn this proposal down, and we're counting on you to do so. Thanks again for your time and deliberation. Reo'ectfulJly, % 'Michael J. Scollins January 5, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: "Spear Meadows" Development / Sketch plan application #SD-09-42 Dear Chairman Dinklage and members of the Development Review Board: We write to express our strong opposition to the proposed "Spear Meadows" development, which is on the Development Review Board's ("DRB") agenda for tonight's meeting. We live on Meadowood Drive, which is around the corner from the Spear Meadows site. You have already received numerous written submissions and verbal statements from various concerned Southeast Quadrant ("SEQ") residents opposing Spear Meadows, and we concur with those objections. The fundamental and fatal problem with Spear Meadows is that it attempts to cram far too many units of residential density onto a parcel that is not in the least bit suitable for such development. Developer Eric Farrell admits as much in his December 28, 2009 Memorandum to City Administrative Officer Ray Belair. On page two of his Memorandum, Mr. Farrell writes: Of the 79 new dwelling units proposed, 58 units or 73.4% are oriented to the street, as depicted on Drawing L 100. This represents an increase from our previously submitted (revised) plan that depicted 86 new units, of which only 33 units or 38.4% were oriented to the street. The very irregular shape of the parcel makes it impossible to orient all of the units to the street, while achieving the desired density. (Emphasis added.)' And yet, as the DRB is aware, the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("SBLDR") mandate that: "Residential buildings must be oriented to the street," and that "Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street." SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1) (emphasis added). See also SBLDR § § 9.09(C)(1) (same) and 9.10(C)(1) (same). If Mr. Farrell were proposing to build consistent with the SEQ's standard 1.2 units of density per acre, he would need to comply with the mandatory street orientation requirements of SBLDR § 9.08(C)(1). Does Mr. Farrell believe, because he is seeking to build more than 3.0 1 By "desired density," Mr. Farrell is referring to the excess density that he desires for financial reasons. Letter to Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board January 5, 2010 Page 2 of 3 units of density per acre via Transferable Development Rights ("TDR"), that he does not need to orient all the buildings and primary entrances toward the street? If so, he is quite wrong. There is nothing in the SBLDR to suggest that Article 9's SEQ design requirements should be relaxed because a developer wishes to use TDR's to build more than the standard allowable density. Indeed, the SBLDR in general and § 9.13(C) in particular are silent on the issue of whether design criteria should be waived in response to a developer's request for increased density. The only conceivable interpretation of this silence is that a developer seeking to use TDR's is required to comply with all of the Article 9 design criteria. If the SBLDR drafters' intent were otherwise, they obviously would have stated as much. Moreover, Section 9.13(C) makes clear that the DRB is under no obligation to approve a TDR request for increased density. This section states in pertinent part that: "If the conditions of [Section] 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a non-contiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above." SBLDR § 9.13(C)(2) (emphasis added). In other words, the DRB is charged to decide whether to approve none, some, or all of the requested increased density. In a situation such as the instant matter, where the developer cannot comply with the SBLDR's Article 9 design criteria while building his "desired" increased density, it is respectfully submitted that design must control over density, and that the request for increased density must be rejected. If the rule were otherwise, Developers could flout the carefully crafted Article 9 design criteria simply by applying for a TDR density increase and then claiming that they cannot meet the design criteria because of the large number of units they are trying to fit into a limited space. In sum, the DRB should not entertain the current Spear Meadows proposal given that it violates long-established SBLDR Article 9 design criteria. This is especially the case because the increased density Mr. Farrell desires magnifies the violative nature of the proposed design. Mr. Farrell is free to try to come up with a PUD proposal that meets the design criteria. If and when he does, the DRB should consider it. The current proposal, though, is fatally flawed and should be rejected because of its fundamental inconsistency with the SBLDR. Thanks. Letter to Mr. John Dinklage, Chairperson South Burlington Development Review Board January 5, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Seff #210 Meadowood Drive Debbie Hernberg #210 Meadowood Drive Michael Scoll ns #214 Meadowood Drive Tom leh #219 Meadowood Drive Lou se Kleh #219 Meadowood Drive Interested Persons Record and Service List southbui,li ncgn ozD 45 u En V07 Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: — PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME ICY `C—b �Ctie aaldx'o 6 e'W1gP'1( s MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST €��0*'tU) 6 , i 4L� Iqt-D �-� t---*'�L S; 7S �r,,,,n oe*< 16J<— 1` uCk—1 7�ara-� G c:4 1� S'fvcQ-4 abs ddR507 S j . Interested Persons Record and Service List south u - j vtennovr Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board DRB administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to (DRB) )has certain compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S. () The DRB must keep a written record g must bean of the name, address and participation of each pes on6who has sought interested Person demonstrate 24 § 4461(b). A COPY of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to everyatus. Y appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list o persons to the a § 4461(b)(3). Upon appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). f interested HEARING DATE: U // PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME kIVk>� �4 �ag In e- 4 aJ MAILING ADDRESS 0 1 y -�7) 0—n te P'� s,g q3 /' ��a�g. �r `S— v j Ie Jr, Glh, 3 3 �c,�� �r PROJECT OF INTEREST � IC �r eA-G ZL a -K�e—( tA,rre4i An,- eAl Interested Persons Record and Service List south )ix d ifigt pk 'E"0FJ' Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: (' C PLEASE PRINT CLEARL y! NAME MAILING ADDRESS _ PROJECT OF INTEREST S (3 . ( -- --4 F56A a ra �i� ►� To Ho V-0 V0� f\z�� \-\. A, Y L4 M I-0,o Zf f�hncc �— t)y. C1 r0 e_c�o y o74� / &A'0?o e� 0aa CC/ �c (( Fad 1 Interested Persons Record and Service List south unol '1 E ,, "' I %". Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY. NAME V) iA q -F, 2-elr- Y- I 'ev" Y� I X�& CJ-WVT>'T�r--rq ®m 0 MAILING ADDRESS � Fin 0( Je � r-) 4- VA1,0- Q-t 5��-►aG�,b�i�s��. l(D Kgat( 4 i-C'(.'C- Z4 7a" y 'Zb PROJECT OF INTEREST �FA {�fL4 (20 S-D)c>17 91 1 - L?"ro I FA4-�LL v J L Cou ec, ukr,-Vati j& 4e- J�f- F: �'-� �'-_ zz - � -_ I Interested Persons Record and Service List southl VEn. +spq•. Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE; F50'W PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! I NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST G I �Diit� _ r --- IA Sr VAf Zlg rjjj(�CW- De f0u-t07- 444-4 WR"d� �� LQrka— mc'�(rs'm � Vait be, c Fa- rIr0'� so uthlb-, Interested Persons Record and Se �-•^ rvlce List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: _/0-- ( 64 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME Voct, Wat- Pef -4 A' 0 0 4" L -'C O L L /,4S Y 1 -` W R a t,L- MAILING ADDRESS 2 17w��l b� �r 1 qo2 i11-k 0�—> add 93 210 MtJOvav) a:. I y A b,,, . i rq 7 1 2 Al "J"LLIVIC / PROJECT OF INTEREST a kAe l J �Fa S? ecy 4eett- meiz�o)� Fv,,-ej1 Interested Persons Record and Service List southo Yzr (r1 V1H 1111 r Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be in opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: — C7 C- PL—EASE PRINT CLEARLY. NAME �W# 0t-"-CT- k�j MAILING ADDRESS 021 ►1l eaduu ocd &Ivy I;' Lj ST cxj -e-t �d Bvz z� Pd` 6vX 2/ s-61Y1 1,1, 10 f -t► l- t-SFi E-E� Via-w <o ' f3,*?-,, ut- o.5-vo::) PROJECT OF INTEREST \90rdt F(,N (\fL s- i V a ,dr,-r-'I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: December 29, 2009 drb\sub\Farrell\SpearkMeadows\sketch2_seq.doc Plans received: December 29, 2009 enda # 7 SPEAR MEADOWS 1350 SPEAR STREET SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-42 Meeting date: January 5. 2010 Owner Applicant Gary N. Farrell, Jane G. Farrell & Spear Eric F. Farrell Meadows Inc. PO Box 1335 1350 Spear Street Burlington, VT 05402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer/Landscape Architect Property Information Civil Engineering Associates Tax Parcel 1640-01350 10 Mansfield View Lane SEQ Zoning District - South Burlington VT 05403 Neighborhood Residential Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Zone D TJ Boyle Associates LLC 26.94 acres 301 College Street Burlington VT 05401 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea Eric Farrell, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review of a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 21 single family dwellings, 3) constructing 17 two (2) family dwellings, and 4) constructing 8 three (3) unit multi- family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board heard the first sketch plan review on October 6, 2009 (minutes attached) and continued the project to November 17, 2009 (minutes attached). The applicant submitted revised plans to the staff on December 29, 2009. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 29, 2009 and have the following comments. The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major issues and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, adequacy of parking, etc, certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Associate Planner Cathyann Larose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, all herein after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these very significant issues: For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: density, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and design. The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.1 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub -district, are 104 units. The applicant is proposing 79 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 80 units within the PUD for a proposed density of 3.06 units/acre. Therefore, a total of 49 development rights shall be needed. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property's inherent density. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seg The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Final Plat approval. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 62 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Spear Street as well as to the existing public road of Vale Drive. Vale Drive is currently a public street terminated in a cul-de-sac. A right-of-way exists at the end of the cul-de-sac, always intended as a secondary access to this parcel. As is customary, the applicant will submit more details of the roadway (including cross -sections) as part of the preliminary plat application. The applicant is now proposing a short dead-end street connection to the parcel to the north, labeled as UVM and State Agricultural College. The City is transitioning between Directors of Public Works. The new Director is expected to begin work at the end of January. Historically, the past Director has had a policy against dead end roads or hammer -head turn-arounds in residential areas. Staff cannot anticipate what the policy will be for the new Director and recommends any final decision on this item until such time as the Director of Public Works can review the plans. Staff reiterates this in a discussion below concerning the road which accesses the proposed neighborhood park. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFI VRaTLON Staff has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, staff finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. The Development Review Board should discuss this matter and determine whether or not they agree. They should give clear guidance to the applicant on this point. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac to access the park area, which is more than 700 feet in length. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations state that: (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). This criterion is waivable. The Board should discuss this request. Given the unique shape of the lot, the location of the wetlands on site, and the existence of two access points, and the close proximity of the cul-de-sac to an adjacent lot with development potential, and that the dead-end road is proposed only to access a park, staff is comfortable with this request. The Board should discuss this item and determine whether or not they are willing to waive this requirement. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seg DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant has also addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The applicant has submitted preliminary sketches which illustrate the general layout of the proposed single family, duplex and triplex units. The applicant states that "of the 79 new dwelling units proposed, 58 units or 73.4% are oriented to the street as depicted on Drawing L100. This represents an increase from our previously submitted plan that depicted 86 new units, of which only 33 units or 38.4% were oriented to the street." The Board previously discussed the amount of translucent surfaces (windows) which would face the south. The applicant has since provided a sheet detailing solar orientation calculations (attached) and has stated that "31 % of the total glazing, measured in square feet, is oriented to the south, which percentage could change somewhat given that we are still at sketch level and final design development drawing for the buildings are yet to be completed." At this stage in the process, the design proposed by the applicant appears to meet the goals and objectives of the design standards of the Southeast Quadrant enumerated within the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends more detailed, smaller scale sketches of the proposed buildings at the preliminary plat level. Still, staff has included the text of the regulations with respect to the Southeast Quadrant in this report should the Board wish to address any of the items at this stage, or to get a better understanding of those issues to be later discussed. The applicant is proposing a 2.7 acre parcel to be deeded to the city as a neighborhood park, as well as a 1.6 acre lot to be used for community gardens. The proposed park will serve as an amenity not just to the residents of the PUD, but will also be convenient to the adjacent neighborhoods as well as open to the general public. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department, and should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. The park is proposed to be accessed via a narrow cul-de-sac off of a wider road stub (labeled on the plans as 'Park Street'). As previously stated, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works to determine the needs for access and turn -around to this parcel. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly -owned recreation area." The proposed park space meets the requirements of this section. The 80 units proposed as part of the PUD are estimated to generate 62.4 pm peak vehicle trip ends (LUC 231). This increased traffic is neither exorbitant nor insignificant. The City requisitioned a corridor study of Spear Street in November, 2004. This corridor study identified several serious concerns within the corridor, most significantly of which is the intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street (partial copy attached). It also outlined several recommendations for improvements along the corridor and at this intersection. Staff recommends a traffic analysis for the proposed development which would include this intersection and interface with the already completed corridor study. At the last meeting, the Board suggested that the traffic study include impacts for a full build -out of the property. The Board should then discuss any need for technical review of said analysis. There are small encroachments into a Class II wetland on the site. Staff finds that the proposed development minimizes the impact to these wetlands to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for some development. Still, pursuant to the SBLDRs, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the State of Vermont prior to final plat approval. There are some locations where the units or associated pavement rest directly upon the wetland buffer limits. The applicant should include a very detailed grading and erosion control plan for construction. Furthermore, staff recommends a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the rear of the homes proposed along the west side of the road so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: There shall be no use of pesticides or non -organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 sea association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. Section 9.08 C(5) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states that "a mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types." The proposed plans include: • 1 existing single family home • 21 detached single family homes ■ 17 duplex structures resulting in 34 units ■ 8 triplex structures resulting in 24 units All of these structures are mixed throughout the proposed development. The applicant has also stated that "among the single family structures, several configurations are made possible by varying the home size, roof orientation, exterior fenestration and porch design, resulting in more than 20 different home styles." Staff finds that the proposed plan fully meets the requirements of this section of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: "These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control." SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR As previously stated, staff has included the text of the regulations in the report for the reference of the Board members. Again, Staff urges the Board to discuss those items which affect the fundamental layout of the site, with other issues to be addressed at the formal hearings of Preliminary and Final Plat Plan review. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drh\suhlsoearmeadows\sketch2 seq The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub -district shall not exceed fifty feet (50), the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. Description and Regulatory Effect. The regulatory text of this Article is supplemented with illustrations, officially known as the Regulating Plan, illustrating the dimensional and design concepts. The Regulating Plan contains basic land planning and neighborhood design criteria that are intended to foster attractive and walkable neighborhood development patterns. Design criteria and guidelines set forth below are intended to address basic neighborhood design relationships related to scale, connectivity, and overall orientation that promote pedestrian friendly development as follows in Section 9.07(C). The Regulating Plan is an illustrative guide; it does not have the same force of regulation as does the text in this bylaw. However, the Development Review Board will refer to both the Regulating Plan and the text of this section in its project reviews B. General Provisions (1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ- VR and SEQ-VC sub -districts. (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub -district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian -scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drh\sub\sgearmeadows\sketch2 seg (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian -friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seq (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.09 SEQ-NR Sub -District: Specific Standards The SEQ-NR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\soearmeadows\sketch2 seg (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on center. (4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). A minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\spearmeadows\sketch2 seq (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. Rear Alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes, and townhouses. (5) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. OTHER The applicant shall work with staff at the preliminary plat level to discuss road names and E-911 standards. The applicant should propose another name for "Park Street" as the City already has a street named Park Road. Also, Vale Drive should be spelled correctly on the plans. The applicant should propose any new names to the Planning Commission for approval prior to final plat approval. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, Cathyann LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, Applicant T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC ' / I I 3' X 3' X 5' HT. STONE COLUMN (BOTH SIDES OF ROAD, LABEL BOTH SIDES OF 9TONE) ----- �Mf H -®L1 — -JSFD� -- -- -- _-__as 39'_---- -- _ - - - )3 ----_ ------------ - y i _ � , , PORCH SETBAC •--�— - 2 _ - - - _ _ - - I _ \ IB'FROMR.O.W.) � _ _ ( - i � - - r � • ' BUaDING SETBACK _—T -55; - - - M2 SUILD1 MR.D.W.) 1 _ 5'RECREATION . ' • - ` - - _ _ _ _ 1 1 ` \ ` PATH EASEMENT - l LOT 5 IS ; \ If I T �I 9j1 I. .L �I I F I P _� B --N_ �' ., . I i L2 r �1; Q, RECEIV =.-- taT :C 9 2009 —.- - --�-- -- ----- ............ '°` ...:f: DEC 2 ---- -�,_ - - - �,- _ :-fig . :o o: DO : :: i City of So. Burlington - -- .................... Open Space \; _-_3g4--ivT"g- \\ _ _____________ -.•�._.. .,.• Pinnacle at Spear / 1 (D_ 386 I RM WA NAGE / C. and C. Hager PROPOSED USE SUMMARY ; ! - - - / I Volume391, _� ��/ P �/ ' sP911_��� �/� Pages 285-288 , '� ��� ---- �yA� \/ /' ` 1 I NUMBER BUILDING NUMBER ` t0.9 acres I _ ///' / I - L OF BUILDINGS MIX OF UNITS sPnucEs LOT 6 I 18 Single Family House 18 M2 / j NEIGHBORHOOD House " / SPauCES' 3 Single(Detached) Carriage 3 PARK / 4 Deubie carnage House 8 M 1 / — \ � 2.7 ACRES I 13 Duplex (Townhouse 4 Cavlage 28 \ / / / ti 1 ' \ . House) / / • LOT 1 / • I \ --� _ 8 Triplex (Townhouse +Carriage 24 C IQ1 / I House +Town House) - y393 . _ _ _ ® 1 Existing Single Family House 1 EXISTING ( • \ \ _ ` \ - _ I Total t = New UnBs that Address Trial Proposed 51NGLEFAMav / \� ` \ \ \ ` ` ` \• _ • •� I Buildings: 47 the Road (58 total) units. 80 We NGLE IAL UNIT _ ` I ` t \ \ �. ,'• / , •I . \ \ LOT 7 COMMUNITY • :.....;� �\ 1L,/ •I \��` \ \ GARDENS PARKINGSUM o / I L_ J 1.6 ACRES I BUILDING SUMMARY REQUIRED PROPOSED ..:..: , a • �� '. J ` \ © / / / I I ® \ MIX PARKING PARKING 1 1 I I \ \ I Single Familypec. House 2 SPx--nn - 38 Spaces 82 Spaces \/ �\ \ - �� is,• y„_ 1 j I I I Ir--� Cj Single(Detached)Carriage 2SM - 6Spaces 9Spaces �_ House F - -Douole Cartage House 2.25 SP—WUNt- 18 Spaces 21 Spaces Duplex (Townhouse + Carriage 2.25 spxuvuns 58.5 Spaces 81 Spaces -lb_-• - House) tdd(Townhouse Carriage 2.25sau✓�S�855paros House+TownHouse) _ g 2 Ste —UM - 2 Spaces 9Spaces EstinSingle Family House I� \ Total - Total Required Spaces: 174.5 Proposed Spaces: 247• ^ _ l \ 7— 1 ' - Does not Include on -street 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 I \ I I , I : i I I parking P I (w seer) 1 \ \SS, / I I ! •f I ! I I ! I I inch - eD rt. T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC REVI 1 Applicant: Eric Farrell landscape architects . planning consultants 1bo 12 23-2009 SPEAR MEADOWS ro PO Box 1335 °V L 1 00 30 Burlington, yr 05402 1 coeege strael • budington • vermont a 05401 802.558.3555 ht1p7hsww.IlW= yle— 1- W Concept Plan Mudh LJ architecture I.I.C. 22 Church S t r e e t Suite 304 Burlington V e r m o n t ( CAI? . H5�. - PUP��X) I3UILPING ' M' 5CA1,1/ 5" - 1' -O" ( CAM;. H5� , - nUP'l X) M E A D O W S S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n V e r m o n t S P E A R RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2009 My of So. Burlington Copyright 2009 { Susan M Coddaire Reg Architect, AIA All Rights Reserved C 1316 HOU51 Wud(o � architecture I.I.c. 22 Church S t r e e t Suite 304 Burlington V e r m o n t Copyright 2009 t'' Susan M Coddairc Reg Architect. AIA All Rights Rcserncd ( CAVI?. H5r. , - PUPX) 13UILPIN6 ' M5f[,9,, f F�FVt 5CALE ; 1 / 8'' - 1 ' -O" (CArl�, H5� , - PUPX) M E A D O W S S o u t h B u r l i n g t o n, Vermont S P E A R RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2009 City of So. Burlington 1 2.28.09 M -4a South Village Data Spear Meadows Data 334 units on 220 acres 93 units on 26 acres Traditional Neighborhood Development Checklist Farrell Density 93 units on 26 acres (6 times the density as South Village) PUD Acreage -- 12% of acreage of South Village 4 units density per acre Spear Meadows -- 1.5 units per acre at South Village Basement — None (35 buildings on slab) Open Space -- None Farm lands -- None Recreational uses -- None Other land uses than duplex, triplex apartments and roads -- None Narrow Streets -- yes Trails — None Parks — None From South Village Website What do Traditional Neighborhood Developments look like? While they are not all the same, they tend to have strong defining characteristics in common. TND's have a compact pattern to promote efficient land use; Open spaces and natural areas are protected The streets are designed on a grid -like pattern; they are generally narrower than those found in typical suburban neighborhoods. They are intentionally designed to reduce vehicle speeds and improve the environment for humans. The pedestrian experience is further enhanced through a network of continuous sidewalks, trails, and parks. TND's usually contain several land uses. Some communities include retail and office uses. South Village expects to include agricultural, educational and recreational uses. TND's have a wide variety of housing types and a range of prices to accommodate the needs of a broad range of residents. The architecture of the individual homes is derived from, respects, and celebrates local building traditions of the region. 073' 11 90.00" 11 1 0 • 10 .W' '".. • / .e :ram_-.�,. . • Al 13 mW 110 Spear Meadows Proie CDL— I • !.` ., �t i jl y + i+eipCrrc.milty J i The r �7•l "t ,+f r ~$ i AQ or 073. 13 00-00- 0 3°12 .00 073° 11' .00" V1! 0 3' 10' .0(r Name: BURLINGTON Location: 044' 26' 00.17' N 073' 11' 31.58" W Date: 3/13/2006 Caption: Spear Meadows Project, Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Overall Location Map Copyright (C) 2002, Maptech• Inc. POV for Ip FWS „" 's'■i ice. �i� mw t s' rr 1 �.. r EN r�It am $� p • r o r' ��" I � ' �.. -iw- r AN - wa for Perk entl TOW uMb-jeo I. - I Applicant: Eric Farrell landscape architects .planning consultants b0 0�12-2009 PO Box 1335 2LI SPEAR MEADOWS FK 1 Burlington, VT 05402 301 college street . buriington . verrnont . 05401 802 e859.3555 hep9/www.lpoy■.oam 1 • = 80'' Rendered Plan Farrell Real Estate P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 fax 802-861-3003 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 09/23/2009 Re: Spear Meadows, 1340 —1350 Spear Street Attached please find the following materials in connection with the above referenced project: • APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • List of Abutters • Application Fee in the amount of $125.00 • Overall Location Map • Spear Meadows — Street Elevations by studio b architecture. Ilc (Drawing No. Al, dated 8/18/09) • _Spear Meadows — Rendered Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates LLC (Sheet No. R100, dated 6/12/09) • Spear Meadows — Concept Plan by T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (Sheet No. L100, dated 6/12/09) • Plat of Survey — Lands of Spear Meadows, Inc. by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. (Drawing Number. S1.0, dated March 24, 2009) • Existing Conditions Plan by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. (Drawing Number C1.0A, dated Nov. 2004) This 26.19-acre parcel received approval from the DRB (#SD-06-63) on August 15, 2006 for 1 existing dwelling unit, 18 new single-family lots and 1 multi -family lot to contain 12 dwelling units, for a total of 31 dwelling units; this being the maximum number of units allowed at the base density of 1.2 units per acre. The project did not proceed beyond the local approval stage at that time due to issues related to prime agricultural soils. The parcel is located in the "SEQ-Neighborhood Residential-NR" Zoning District, which is a "receiving" area for TDR's, allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre (or 104 units), as set forth in Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The property owner has entered into an option agreement with Leduc Farm, Inc. for the purchase of 56 units of density. The Leduc land is located in the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection — NRP" Zoning District, a "sending" area per Section 9 of the South Land Development Regulations. The materials submitted herein depict a residential community to contain a total of 93 dwelling units, in the following configurations: 1 existing single-family house; 13 duplex structures and 22 three-plex structures. The new duplex structures are designed as a 2-story home oriented to the street with an attached 3-car garage. The garage will be oriented perpendicular to the street, so that the doors will not be a prominent feature along the street. A carriage house (flat) dwelling unit will be located above the garage. The new three-plex structures present the same design as the duplexes; however the attached garage will have parking for 3 or 4 cars with a carriage house (flat) unit located above the garage, plus another 2-story home attached at the rear of the structure. The 2-story homes (front and rear) will vary in size from 1,400 — 1,900 sf and typically contain 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The carriage house units will vary in size from 1,000 — 1,250 sf and typically contain 1 or 2 bedrooms and 1 or 2 baths. The creative design of the buildings offers infinite opportunities to shift square footage between units, so as to create smaller or larger homes. The homes facing the street will feature a variety of front porch styles, roof orientations and other fenestrations intended to enhance the fabric of the streetscape and promote community interaction. Our goal is to provide a wide variety of very attractive, highly efficient homes that are within the economic reach of folks working within our community. We expect sale prices to start in the mid $200,000's. Design Efficiency We are committed to providing very energy -efficient homes utilizing the latest technologies in the emerging green building movement. This would extend to the site infrastructure improvements wherever possible, as a responsible contribution to a cleaner and safer environment. TDR's With a base density of 31 units and having secured an option to purchase 56 units of additional density from Leduc Farms, Inc., we will need to secure 6 more units of density from within the SEQ-NRP Zoning District to achieve the 93 dwelling units proposed. • Page 2 In similar regard, we request a confirmation including the 31 st unit (base density), prior additional density to the project site. Phasing that we can execute the project up to and to having to actually purchase and transfer The Spear Meadow community will be built out over a multi -year period, based on market demand commencing as early as 2010, subject to the procurement of permits. We will start with the new road where it intersects with Spear Street and proceed easterly and then southerly, ultimately connecting with the northerly terminus of Vale Drive in the Pinnacle at Spear development. The cul-de-sac section of our development (17 units) would likely be the final phase. We would like to confirm our understanding that we will not be required to complete the Vale Drive connection until we have completed the 50th unit (including the existing house). DRB Meeting We intend to make a power -point presentation to the DRB utilizing additional materials intended to demonstrate the quality and fabric of the community we plan to create. All of the comments and suggestions that came out of our private meetings with abutting neighbors back in 2006, as well as the DRB hearings, regarding screening and other matters will be incorporated into our revised plans. Please schedule me before the DRB for a Sketch Plan review at its earliest convenience. Attachments 0 Page 3