CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_sketch_March17_mtg

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 13, 2015 Plans received: March 9, 2015

1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street

Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-37

Meeting date: March 17, 2015

Owner Spear Meadows, Inc Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403

Applicant Chris Snyder Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482

Engineer Plans not stamped by an Engineer

Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres

Location Map

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven (7) 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three (3) 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. Proposed development in this area has been discussed in depth at multiple prior DRB meetings in connection with applications #SD-11-51 and #MP-11-03. The proposal has a new applicant under this Sketch Plan, however. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics 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. 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. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for landscaping, traffic and other issues certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Planning & Zoning Director Paul Conner and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 15, 2014 and the revised plan submitted on March 6, 2015 and offer the following comments. Note: The revised sketch plan for this meeting was received on March 9th, 2015. Staff from Planning & Zoning have taken a very preliminary look at the modified proposal. The City’s other reviewing departments, Public Works, Fire, and Recreation & Parks and any committees have not yet seen this proposal. Issues for discussion • Proposed Public Park

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 area set aside for the proposed public park is approximately 1.9 acres. This meets the minimum standard, of approximately 1 acre. The Board should consider the proposed park in the context of the overall PUD.

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Staff recommends the Board discuss the proposed new location of the park, as it has moved to the southwest corner of the property. A few notes for consideration:

• How would the proposed park be accessed by pedestrians from the duplexes and triplexes within the PUD, and by residents outside of the PUD? The location appears to be more remote and difficult to access than previously.

• How would privacy / future noise issues be addressed with the park directly adjacent to proposed and existing single family house lots?

• What is the applicant’s understanding of ownership of the roadway leading to the park? A public park would need to be accessed by a public roadway. In this case, the roadway does not appear to meet City specifications for width or turn-around. Further, the length of the road exceeds the maximum cul-de-sac distance in the SEQ-NR District. The Board, under previous applications, had expressed concerns about public roadways crossing the wetland and exceeding the maximum cul-de-sac standard.

1. Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. The applicant should engage in discussions with the Director of Public Works, Director of the Recreation Department and with the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and these should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address the location overall size of the park and which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs.

• Agriculture

There are no community gardens depicted on the plan. The LDRs (Section 9.06)C) state:

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.

2. Given that there are 29 units in duplexes or triplexes and therefore limited yard space for these owners, a community garden or other agricultural elements – an orchard, fruit trees, etc - space is highly desirable and the applicant should explore locating such facilities convenient to these units.

• Recreation Path and Block Lengths

The City’s official map depicts the proposed route of the recreation path to connect from Vail Drive to Spear Street. Staff recognizes and appreciates the applicant now placing the recreation path along the eastern edge of the property in response to concerns previously expressed by staff and the Board.

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING

3. Staff recommends that the applicant add a short path spur from the driveway area serving the triplex complex to the path.

Staff notes that the proposed 750 ft. block length along single-family footprint lots, 1-13, is inconsistent with standards for the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict, stated as follows.

9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have 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 it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.

4. Staff would recommend addition of a mid-block sidewalk connection near footprint lots 8

& 9. The applicant should address this. The standard above includes use of the word “must.” The Board should consider this standard, and address whether the proposed plan meets the regulation. Subsection 9.08(A) (2) (b) notes that “(d)ead end streets (e.g. culs-de-sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” The proposed road to access units 23 and 24 and the proposed park is approximately 510 feet long and is also a cul-de-sac.

5. See notes above regarding the park. If this current configuration of this road remains in place as the project moves towards preliminary and flat plat approval, staff recommends that the applicant work with the Director of Public Works and Fire Department to determine the needs for access and turn-around to these lots, as well as the details for the road construction.

14.06 General Review Standards …………….

B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas.

(2) Parking:

(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING

(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.

(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act;

(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;

(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street;

(iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s);

(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or

(vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria:

Staff notes that the proposed triplexes in the project appear to have vehicle parking in the rear of the units with access via a private driveway. This is acceptable.

6. The applicant should clarify the parking and driveway plans for units 14 through 22.

The proposed sidewalk along units 25-38 is impacted by driveways. This frontage is approximately 750 feet long. Assuming 14 driveways each with a 20 ft. width, 280 feet or 37.3% of this frontage will be interrupted by driveways.

Similarly, the recreation path along units 46 through 52 is impacted by driveways. This frontage is approximately 330 feet long. Assuming 7 driveways each with a 20 ft. width, 1400 feet or 42.4% of this frontage will be interrupted by driveways.

7. Staff recommends the applicant explore the use of share driveway entrances for duplex units where possible the development to reduce sidewalk interruptions. Staff recommends that the applicant explore different building orientations for units 25 & 26 and units 37 & 38 such as facing the end units and their driveways towards the east-west side streets and/or having rear loaded garages accessed via those same side streets.

8. Staff also notes that the applicant will need to comply with Section 9.08, C.(4) which requires that “the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet.”

9. Given that the length of Vale Drive exceeds the required block length, staff recommends that the applicant address this with a solution consistent with the regulations.

• Parcel 1

The plans depict a building, lot 52, along the western edge of the parcel. As currently shown, the building is oriented to the proposed new street, as opposed to facing Spear Street. The proposed setback of the building approximates those of abutting properties on Spear Street.

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING

10. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this issue with the applicant and provide guidance on the orientation of the building.

• Density The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.15 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 under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing to construct 52 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 53 units within the PUD. Lot 1 1 unit one, existing SF home to remain Units 24 & 25 2 units SF homes

Units 1-13, 39-45 & 52 21 units SF home footprint lots Units 25-38 & 46-51 20 units 10 duplexes Units 14-22 9 units 3 triplexes This is a proposed density of approximately 2.03 units per acre.

A total of 22 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney no later than prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended 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.

11. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing

of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval.

a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the

options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board.

b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit all legal documents showing clear

ownership and transfer of the development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit.

• Roads and Circulation and Stormwater The Public Works Department provided detailed comments on the first proposed subdivision plans in mid-December 2014. The proposed revised plan submitted on March 9th differs substantially from that first version and does not provide sufficient detail on roads and stormwater for staff to accurately comment. • Phasing

CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The Board should discuss phasing for the following items:

• Road completion; • Road connection to Vale Drive; • Timing for construction and completion of Park; • General phasing for the order of construction of buildings; • Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection;

• Notice of Conditions There are “footprint” lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of planning and zoning, all lots will be considered one lot.

12. For purposes of planning and zoning, the footprint lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot within each grouping. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans.

• Mix of Housing Types

13. While most details will be addressed at preliminary and final plat, staff notes the applicant’s proposal may or may not be consistent with Section 9.08 C.(5)

(1) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units.

RECOMMENDATION 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. Staff notes that as the project evolves, additional questions not raised herein may be posed. Respectfully submitted,

________________________________ Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director

LETTER TO DRB 3/11/15 RE SPEAR MEADOWS Spear Meadows development has been discussed in detail by the DRB, neighbors and developers for nearly 10 years. Many of the abutters of this project have resided here for 30 or more years, and chose their homesites when the zoning in that field allowed only one unit per 10 acres. It was with that info that I chose to purchase my lot in 1974, over several other options. The zoning was changed to a max of 1.2 units per acre 20 years ago, at which time the DRB was created to ensure that interests of developers and abutters alike were protected. When the Farrells initially proposed their development 10 years ago, the neighbors were confident that development would be limited to a max of 1.2 units per acre, since all the homes to the east and west of the field occupied two or more acres, and higher density would, we felt, be incompatible with the surrounding area. The plan for the full 31 units was approved, and the neighbors accepted this plan, since it was reasonably tasteful, didn’t infringe excessively on abutting homes, included a reasonably practical recreation path, and was aesthetically consistent with Pinnacle to the South. When the Farrells returned to the DRB with a new proposal to use TDR’s to expand the density, the neighbors were hopeful that the Board would exercise its discretion to disallow application of TDR’s to the site, as any effort to do so would result in density incompatible with the site itself as well as the surrounding area.. What followed have been a series of at least 6 hyperdense proposals that could only serve the interests of the developer. This site rests at the northwest corner of the southeast quadrant, and serves as its window from the north or west. Whenever I casually mention to visitors or friends that 50 or more units may be erected in that field (indeed, due to the wetland, most of the units would be along the easterly border, packed into an area of about 10 acres), they react with animated disbelief. Whatever is built in that field will serve as a major landmark for our City for the foreseeable future. I urge the DRB to ensure that it’s done properly. We are depending on the DRB to safeguard the interests of the neighbors and of the City. I respectfully suggest that the DRB limit the maximum density to 1.2 units per acre such that the Spear Meadows homesites are both appropriate to the site as well as more compatible with the surrounding area, and also to allow a proper park and recreation path. Thanks very much for your consideration, and for your continued hard work. Respectfully. Michael J. Scollins, 214 Meadowood Drive Cc: City Council

. .

On the subject ofTDR's, the Applicant failed to respond to Question 9b on the SketchPlan Application form as to the location, including street address, from which the TDR's wouldbe transferred. As such, the Neighbors Group submits that the DRB should await receipt of suchinformation before proceeding further on the Application. (In that connection, the Applicant also

The Applicant seeks DRB approval for as many as twenty-two TDR-based units ofdensity in order to add to the property's allowable base density of thirty-one units, for amaximum of fifty-three units. The Neighbors Group continues to maintain that the TDR bylawcontained within the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR) isunenforceable because it fails to comply with State law - specifically 24 V.S.A. § 4423 - andbecause it is unconstitutionally void for vagueness under the standards set out in the VermontSupreme Court case ofIn re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, 185Vt. 201, 969 A.2d 47.

I was not able to attend the January 20th DRB sketch meeting on the above-referencedmatter, but I understand from my clients that the topic of Transferable Development Rights(TDR's) came up, and that the Neighbors Group offered to send the DRB a letter on the subject,as well as other matters related to the proposed project. I would be grateful if you would acceptthis letter as part of that submission and include it in the packet of materials for the DRB'sMarch 17th meeting.

I serve as counsel in connection with the above-referenced matter for William Gilbert andMs. Maurene Gilbert of 1400 Spear Street, Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh of219Meadowood Drive, Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins of 214 Meadowood Drive, Dr.Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff of 89 Springhouse Road, and the Pinnacle at SpearHomeowners Association, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as abutters and/orinterested persons in the above-referenced matter (collectively, the "Neighbors Group").

Dear Chairman Barritt:

Re: Snyder Homes Sketch Plan Application # SD -14-37 (S. Burl. Dev. Rev. Bd.)

Mr. Tim Barritt, ChairSouth Burlington Development Review BoardCity of South Burlington575 Dorset StreetSouth Burlington, VT 05403

VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL

March 11,2015

at

BURA

MELLONI

cc: Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer (via e-mail) Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) Ms. Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner (via e-mail) Mr. William Gilbert and Ms. Maurene Gilbert (via e-mail) Dr. Thomas Kleh and Ms. Louise Kleh (via e-mail) Mr. Bryan Landerman, President, Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Ass'n (via e-mail) Dr. Michael Scollins and Dr. Mary Scollins (via e-mail) Dr. Robert Skiff and Ms. Marley Skiff (via e-mail) Robert Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail)

Daniel A. Seff

Respectfully Submitted,

~Al On behalf of the Neighbors Group, thanks very much to the DRB members for their

consideration and courtesies.

Under these circumstances, the Neighbors Group suggests respectfully that the best course of action would be for the DRB to direct the Applicant to revise the project's design to a lower and more reasonable and realistic density (rather than trying to mold the requested permit to allow excess TDR-based density).

A substantial portion of the Planning and Zoning Staff comments that the DRB reviewed during the January 20th sketch meeting would not exist or would be ameliorated substantially if the project's density were reduced. For example, block lengths, road crossings, traffic impact, interrupted sidewalks and safety issues, recreation path locations, adequacy of community garden space in the planned very dense central portion of the project, ingress, egress, turnaround space, garage and parking location.

I understand that the DRB raised several other issues during the January 20th sketch meeting that require additional information and a further response from the Applicant. The Neighbors Group reserves comment on these matters and requests the opportunity to comment after the Applicant provides the DRB with additional information and/or a further response.

failed to state any legal interest in the real estate that is the subject of the Application, as is required in response to Application Question 4.)

I am advised that, during the January 20th sketch meeting, the DRB indicated that it might consider consulting with the City Attorney regarding the implementation and interpretation of the City's TDR bylaw. The Neighbors Group welcomes such an inquiry and I would request that the DRB allow the undersigned and Neighbors Group member and retired lawyer Mr. William A. Gilbert to participate in such a discussion with the City Attorney and/or the DRB. I note that the Applicant has requested to meet with various City officials as part of the Application's preparation and in response to the DRB's concerns. Therefore, I request respectfully that Mr. Gilbert and I be included as part of any similar review of the TDR issue.

MELLONIPtc BURAK ANDERSON DRB Chair Tim Barritt March 11, 2015 Page 2of2