ATTACHMENT 2
21 May 2007
Dear David:
In the most recent meeting with the Meadows community (18 April 2007), you presented an alternative plan for the Sanctuary at Cobblestone Creek. This alternative plan was designed to address concerns raised by the town council, the community design commission, and several members of the Meadows community.
We appreciate the continued communication about the proposed development. You have sought our input in trying to make this a development that the “neighbors” can support. For these efforts, we are quite grateful.
Unfortunately, the alternative plan presents many of same challenges as the previous two plans. Indeed, the alternative plan is just as problematic or worse along three important dimensions: (1) density on the back of the property behind the intermittent creek; (2) environmental concerns; and (3) privacy.
Before turning to these concerns, a brief history of the development helps to frame the discussion. The original plan included 26 single family houses. Of those 26 homes, six were situated at the back of the property, abutting the Meadows. To access these homes, there was a single lane road that crossed the creek twice.
The community design commission liked the development in spirit, but raised several concerns. Commissioner Amy Ryan “was concerned about the buffers with the adjacent neighborhoods and that the project was too dense. She suggested that the homes be clustered more densely at the road and leave more of the land in the back near the RCD undisturbed.” See attached 24 Jan 2007 minutes, hereinafter Design Minutes. Commissioner Ryan also took issue with the bridges, suggesting that “the road cross the RCD once at most, not twice as proposed.” Design Minutes at 2 (emphasis added). Commissioner Robin Whitsell was “concerned about the setbacks from adjacent properties but looked forward to the project’s return.” Design Minutes at 3.
In response to the design commission, you altered the plan. The new plan included 25 houses, with five single family homes located at the back of the property. The plan called for a single two-lane road crossing the creek and an access road along the edge of the property closest to the Meadows. This revised plan was presented to the town council.
Like the design commission, the town council supported the plan in spirit but not in execution. Most relevant for our purposes are statements by Mayor Foy and Council Member Greene. Mayor Foy said “he could not tell whether the density was appropriate or not, noting that the mere fact that the zoning permits it does not mean the Council would approve it. They need to be respectful of what that property can handle, he said.” See attached 19 Feb 2007 minutes, hereinafter Council Minutes. Echoing Mayor Foy’s concerns, Council Member Greene said that “the back section, to the right of the stream, looked too crowded to her. She said she would like to see fewer houses in that section.” Council Minutes at 2. Council Member Greene also shared some environmental concerns, asking the staff “if there had been any consideration given to stands of emerging hardwoods.” Council Minutes at 3.
The most recent alternative plan reduces the number of homes on the back of the property from five to four. Each home, however, is a duplex. The duplexes are larger than the single family dwellings considered in the previous two plans. Each duplex has a two-car garage. As a result, while the absolute number of homes has fallen, the square footage of proposed construction remains the same and perhaps even increases. In other words, the new plan does not reduce the total amount of building on the back of the property.
This raises several issues. First, the number of trees needed to be cleared in order to complete the project remains the same and perhaps even increases. Second, the two-lane bridge remains. And the impact of this road on the environment – impervious surface area, drainage, and flooding in particular – is uncertain. Third, the density of the back of the property (in terms of total developed area) remains the same. Fourth, the duplexes are still within 12 feet of the property line. Coupled with the tree removal necessary to construct the larger duplexes, the close proximity means that there will be little to no privacy between the two communities. As noted above, the design commission and the town council raised these issues too.
We appreciate that this is a concept plan, but it is not clear how existing regulations and restrictions with respect to the RCD, easements, road and sidewalk width, etc, will impact the concept plan. Additionally, getting water, sewer, electricity, and cable across the creek to the back of the property will not be trivial and will be expensive.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot endorse the alternative concept plan before it is submitted to the design commission or the town council. In our view, the best way to address the concerns of our community, the town council, and the design commission is to refrain from building across the creek. We agree with Mayor Foy that we be respectful of what the property can handle. Duplicating “the Turnberry design” would generate our immediate and enthusiastic endorsement. In fact, we believe that such a plan would quickly gain support from the town, too.
We look forward to continuing correspondence and to another plan from you that resolves more of these issues.
Sincerely yours,
Timothy A. Kuhn on behalf of The Meadows
Attachments