HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (13)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 25, 2022
South Burlington Development Review Board
C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: O’Brien Eastview Planned Unit Development Final Plat Public Hearing, November 16, 2022
Dear Board Members:
On April 14, 2022, we submitted our Application for Final Plat for the O’Brien Eastview project
(the “Project”). The Project had its first Public Hearing (the “Public Hearing”) on July 19, 2022. In
advance of that public hearing, the Applicant (O’Brien Eastview LLC), received a staff report dated July
13, 2022 (the “Staff Report”). The Project had its second hearing on September 7, 2022, (“Public Hearing
2”), and received a staff report dated September 7, 2022 (“Staff Report 2”), the Project had its third
public hearing (“Public Hearing 3”) on October 6, 2022, and received a staff report dated October 6,
2022 (“Staff Report 3”). The subsequent information is provided to summarize the feedback received
both at the public hearings and in staff reports, and the changes made to the Project plans in response
to that feedback. For the sake of time, we have only discussed changes where further information is
needed for the Board. Simple plan changes and edits were made without further discussion.
Enclosed with this letter is a fully updated set of Project plans, which we hope are inclusive of all
changes requested. Also enclosed are additional exhibits noted below. Any exhibit provided that has
the same Exhibit number as the original application, is provided to supersede the previous exhibit. New
Exhibits are provided with new distinct numbers. In some instances, plan sheets have been given a four‐
digit exhibit number, 132.1, to allow the files to sit logically in the plan set in sequence within the
Exhibits. A complete Exhibit Table of Contents is also provided for ease of reference.
The Staff Reports and hearings are addressed in order below. We have addressed only those
items where more information was needed. The red text is an exact excerpt from the Staff Report. Blue
text are comments from City agencies provided in the Staff Report. Black italic text are quotes from the
staff report where no number or color highlight was provided.
1. Public Hearing and Staff Report: Below please find relevant excerpts and responses from
the Public Hearing.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what improvements they are proposing to
replace the previously included path, which is a founding supposition of the “VT 116 / Kimball
2
Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan” upon which the applicant’s traffic study
was based. Staff reminds the Board that they are currently reviewing an application from UVMMC
for development of the parcel to the south.
The Applicant has updated the project plans with a new alignment of the recreation path
connection to the Tilly Drive office park. The path has shifted west and now aligns with the current
development of UVM Medical Center on the adjacent parcel. The Applicant has worked with UVM to
ensure the remainder of the connection is included in their project, and we believe this item to be fully
resolved.
5. Staff supports this comment and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the design
of the sidewalk to address it. The recommended modifications will be within the City ROW.
This comment relates to the sidewalk connection between the Project and Hinesburg Road. The
Applicant met with DPW and discussed this connection. A mutually agreeable solution was discussed,
and the Project plans now reflect that solution. We believe this sidewalk design issue to be complete.
In addition to the sidewalk design, the Department of Public Works provided a long list of
additional items for review, which was included in this Staff Report, an extensive list of stormwater
specific comments was provided. We have endeavored to address each of these items in the updated
submission. We have worked directly with the DPW stormwater team and responded to all comments
with needed changes. Below a list of items that are not fully addressed and corrected in the current
plans are discussed briefly. We will plan to review these items at our in‐person meeting with DPW on
Wednesday, October 26th.
Please calculate signal warrants for residential and partial‐build at proposed signals at
Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd and Kimball Ave/Potash Rd to determine approximately when
signal will be required.
In response to this question, Roger Dickenson provided the following supplemental information.
For this Project, our initial projections of the future traffic generation and directional
distributions of Eastview’s initial residential development phase indicates that the Kimball Ave/Old Farm
Rd intersection will continue to experience acceptable levels of service and that a traffic signal will not
be warranted at that intersection by this initial phase.
Instead, the installation of traffic signals at these two intersections will be triggered by the
traffic volumes generated by Eastview’s proposed commercial uses after the initial residential
construction phase has been completed. Further affecting this will be the opening of a Potash Rd / Tilley
Dr connection. Such a connection will increase traffic exiting Potash Rd at Kimball, with a similar
reduction exiting Old Farm Rd at Kimball.
With the above in mind, the two MUTCD warrants for signalization which are applicable here
are Warrant 2 – Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3 – Peak Hour. With the speed limit on
Kimball Ave being 40 mph, the 70% Factor will apply. Both of these warrants are solved graphically
using the following figures from the MUTCD:
3
4
Given existing peak traffic volumes on Kimball Ave, both of the above warrants will be likely
examined using the side street volume minimum thresholds on the right side of each figure (the “flat‐
line” portion).
It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict at this time with any reasonable degree of certainty
when one or both of the above warrants will be satisfied. Instead, the best approach will be to monitor
future traffic conditions by performing periodic turning movement counts at each intersection as
development of Eastview progresses, and more accurate estimates of the trip generation and directional
distributions of specific proposed commercial use(s) can be made based on observed traffic patterns.
Confirm lengths of left turn lanes are sufficient for peak hour traffic at Kimball Ave/Old Farm
Rd and Kimball Ave/Potash Rd.
Old Farm Rd 95% Q
2032 AM Partial Build without Tilley Dr connection – EB LT = 14’, WB LT = 46’
2032 AM Partial Build with Tilley Dr connection – EB LT = 17’, WB LT = 18’
2032 PM Partial Build without Tilley Dr connection – EB LT = 2’, WB LT = 65’
2032 PM Partial Build with Tilley Dr connection – EB LT = 4’, WB LT = 36’
Potash Rd 95% Q
2032 AM Partial Build without Tilley Dr connection – WB LT = 15’
2032 AM Partial Build with Tilley Dr connection – WB LT = 23’
2032 PM Partial Build without Tilley Dr connection – WB LT = 27’
2032 PM Partial Build with Tilley Dr connection – WB LT = 44’
In last Thursday’s virtual meeting with Erica Quallen, Erica asked if the lengths of the new left‐
turn lanes on Kimball Ave could be reduced. DPW prefers that they not be overdesigned. Based on the
above 95% Q lengths we can reduce the westbound left‐turn lanes at both intersections to be 75 ft long,
which is the typically accepted minimum length and we will adjust the project plans accordingly.
The southern corner requires two pedestal poles for ADA compliance: one in the existing
location for the Old Farm Road crossing and an additional one for the eastbound Kimball
Ave crossing. Perhaps cantilever pole #3 could be relocated and pushbutton and pedestrian
signal head could be mounted on that pole.
There is a CWD water main in very close proximity to the suggested location for pole #3. There
is no good location in this corner to move either the pedestal pole or cantilever pole #3 without
impacting the water main. This is one of those situations where you do the best you can; the MUTCD
language uses “should” instead of “shall” when outlining the guidelines for push button locations.
Flashing Don’t Walk across Kimball Ave must be at least 11 seconds.
The 10 sec. FDW time is based on Kimball Ave’s 32’ road width and the MUTCD required 3.5 fps
walking speed. There is also a buffer interval (3 sec. min per MUTCD) of Steady Don’t Walk following the
FDW before conflicting traffic is released. The pedestrian flashing don’t walk times have been further
5
modified to add the buffer interval (steady don’t walk) per the MUTCD. The total crossing time is the
sum of the flashing don’t walk and the buffer interval times, again per the MUTCD.
Flashing Don’t Walk across Potash Road must be at least 13 seconds.
This was increased to 11 sec. (38’/3.5 fps). There is also a buffer interval (3 sec. min per
MUTCD) of Steady Don’t Walk following the FDW before conflicting traffic is released.
Language contained in the “triggers” section of the column should be reviewed for clarity. In
some cases, the language is imprecise (e.g. “any time prior to or after completion of..”, see
phases 5 and 6) and does not appear to place any restrictions, or provide clarity, regarding
when work will take place.
This was discussed with the Board at the Hearing. I believe the conclusion was that the Board
was ok with this language, or would suggest an alternative as a condition of approval.
Mast arms should be of standard length and be rounded to the nearest 5’
This was discussed and I believe is ok as‐is.
Narrative describes no signal at O’Brien Farm Rd and Old Farm Rd being warranted or shown
in the plans (page3) but Exhibit 111 shows incomplete signal plans for this intersection.
The Preliminary Plat specifically required that we demonstrate in our plans a signal could be
installed at this intersection. We are not proposing a signal, merely demonstrating one can fit, therefore
we believe no action is needed for this comment.
There appears to be a drainage line along the frontage of lots 26‐29. Confirm that this line is
to remain privately owned?
This can remain privately owned.
The 10’ paved multi‐use path stops near wetland #7. The applicant should continue this path
to the east until it reaches the end of the property along Kimball Avenue.
The location and termination of this path was planned and discussed at Preliminary Plat.
Extending the path further will require fill, potential retaining walls and significant wetland and stream
buffer impacts. Given that the path will not connect to anything, if extended to the property line, it is
not feasible to expect a wetland and stream buffer impact permit will be granted, nor would it be
advisable to have such an impact without ultimately creating a full connection. This path extension is on
the radar of the South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee as a City project, which we discussed
with them in reviewing our proposal. For the reasons noted, this path has not been extended.
8. Since the homes will be of a different style and set apart from the road, Staff considers this
configuration will detract from their being integrated into the neighborhood. Staff supports these
homes as cottages if possible as a way of integrating a variety of home styles into the development,
6
but recommends the Board discuss whether there is a way to construct homes in this location with a
less jarring transition than a retaining wall.
No change has been made for this item as we believe it was discussed and concluded to be
acceptable as‐is.
9. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to make a presentation on the area of lot coverage
that makes up proposed public roadways and pedestrian infrastructure within the rights of way, and
what percentage of the overall coverage in the R1‐PRD those elements represent, and recommends
the Board consider whether to allow the applicant to discount some fraction of the public roadways
from the computation of lot coverage in exchange for implementing the requests of the Board in
terms of sidewalk and rec path connectivity.
The Applicant has updated the lot coverage table at Exhibit 005 to include a reduction in
coverage of 56,213 square feet, as discussed with the Board at the public hearings.
11. Staff recommends the Board give the applicant the opportunity to put forth an alternative proposal
that achieves the same objective of providing certainty that infrastructure will be completed in a
timely manner relative to construction of the majority of homes. If no such alternative exists, Staff
considers there has been no change in circumstances which would warrant modification of this
requirement.
The Applicant and the Board discussed phasing at length. The feedback of the Staff Report and
the Board at the Public Hearing has been addressed in an updated phasing plan, attached as Exhibit 123.
We believe that the plan as presented here provides for all of the requests of the Board as discussed at
the Public Hearing.
2. Public Hearing 2 and Staff Report 2: Below please find relevant excerpts and responses
from the Public Hearing 2.
3. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposal for removing a portion of the ROW lot
coverage from the computation of lot coverage within the R1‐PRD zoning district.
4. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to develop a proposal for how to administer
minor home expansions in the future given the maximum allowable lot coverage and the eventual
private ownership of lots or footprint lots.
The Board and the Applicant discussed the administration of excess coverage for some time at
Public Hearing 2. In the end, it was noted that because the neighborhood is planned in such a way as
the homes are fairly close to each other, and the opportunity for expansion of the homes is fairly
minimal, that the opportunity for a few homes to use all of the excess coverage was not likely. As noted
at Exhibit 005, the Applicant has around 45,000 square feet of excess coverage, which equates to
roughly 290 square feet per unit. This would be the equivalent of a 17’x17’ addition. The physical ability
to fit an addition or patio of this size would be limited to only a few homes in the development. And
given this, it seems unlikely that all of the footage would be used up by a few.
Because the neighborhood is not yet built, we actually do not even know the coverage that will
exist at completion, as which home plans are chosen will result in lowering the overall coverage number,
which is currently based on only the largest footprint on each lot. There is no doubt smaller homes will
7
be purchased, which will reduce the coverage and increase the excess available to the neighborhood in
the future.
The Applicant would propose that the administration of excess lot coverage to ensure equitable
distribution be left to the Homeowners Association to decide using its rules and approval powers. We
believe that the owners themselves will be in the best position to adjudicate and approve any future
expansion and use of the coverage available, and to track that coverage as required for submission of
City permit documents. We do not believe any additional information is needed at this time, and that
the HOA documents clearly set in place the requisite approval process for this to be the duty of the HOA.
5. Homes 24‐1 through 24‐2 appear to be proposed to be served by detached garages separated from
the building by less than 5‐feet. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the
design objective in creating a small space between the homes and the garages.
The updated plans have increased this distance to 10’ and we believe this issue is resolved.
14. The applicant has reduced the number of homes from six to five, and has arranged the homes more
consistently. However, the central organizing feature appears to be a utility cabinet. Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to relocate the utility cabinet to another location so that
and demonstrate that how they are refining the design to provide a thoughtfully designed central
common space. One improvement should include looping the sidewalk in front of the units.
The Applicant has relocated the utility box as requested and redesigned the landscape around a half‐
circle walkway to address this issue. This is shown in the updated plan sets attached.
17. Staff recommends the Board discuss the applicant whether there should be temporary overflow dog
park parking available in the C1‐LR district, as overflow from the dog park will likely occur in that
area once it is constructed.
The Applicant is open to this addition of temporary gravel parking for use of folks visiting the
dog park prior to the full build out of the C1‐LR. The timing of the dog park is linked in the phasing plan
to development of the C1‐LR. The Applicant would suggest that provision of this temporary parking be
administered via subsequent hearings for the development in the C1‐LR that will trigger the dog park
construction. Given that we do not know what development or where in the C1‐LR that development
will be (which triggers the dog park), it did not make sense to modify the plans at this point to show a
parking area that may well be exactly where the first C1‐LR project wants to be located.
18. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to present the concept for the C1‐LR, including how
it is to be used (ie what aspects of it can be considered a proposal and what aspects are a concept),
how it addresses the preliminary plat conditions, and whether the proposed subdivision plan
presented on sheets PL‐1 and PL‐2 will need to be changed (and if so, when the Board can expect
receiving that proposal).
19. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the concept to have achieved the
conditions of preliminary plat, and if so, what about the concept they find to have been successful.
Staff will take those elements and ensure they are incorporated into the final plat decision.
8
The Applicant presented an updated concept layout for the C1‐LR portion of the Project at
Public Hearing 2. This presentation was well received by the Board, and it was indicated that the
Applicant should proceed with adjusting the Project plans to fit this concept. As noted in the staff
comment above, this included changing the Plat Plans to create lots that align with the conceptual
buildings shown in the C1‐LR. Enclosed you will find those updated plat plans. The number of lots
increased, as the concept plan shows more, smaller buildings than past concepts. Also provided here
are the materials presented to the Board at Public Hearing 2. Specifically, the C1‐LR concepts and
presentation, provided at Exhibit 015, and 016 through 016.2.
21. It does not appear the applicant has made such a proposal. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to propose a maximum primary frontage (as described above, the central organizing
element, Old Farm Road, and O’Brien Farm Road) that can be parking. If the Board accepts this
proposal, the non‐primary frontage could be fully parked, provided it complies with #5 below.
Exhibit 016.1 provides a parking vs. building footage/distance on each face of each block of the
C1‐LR. The Project design review standards recommended and reviewed by the Board include a
requirement pertaining to this issue. In the context of the C1‐LR, the Applicant presented, and the
Board preliminarily agreed with the use of the following criteria in review of future C1‐LR applications
pursuant to the framework set in place in this PUD and the Design Guide provided. The last standard
pertains to the amount of parking allowed on each block. Those standards are as follows:
i. The Project provides a central pedestrian‐oriented streetscape to foster community and
create a sense of place within the C1‐LR development area. Design elements to be of a
similar aesthetic as outlined at Exhibit 015.
ii. The Project features a central design element (plaza) as a gathering space, designed in
the spirit of images provided at Exhibit 015.
iii. The Project focuses services, retail and commercial development on the northern block,
and residential, senior housing and hospitality development on the southern blocks in
large part, with limited exceptions.
iv. The Project provides a residential transition between the R1 and C1‐LR lands that
creates a desirable transition for the Eastview neighborhood.
v. The Project landscape and building architecture provide an urban, pedestrian‐oriented
design aesthetic in accordance with character imagery submitted at Exhibit 015 and
Exhibit 016.
vi. Streetscape elements include a variety of different materials, brick, colored concrete,
asphalt paving, granite curbing, designed to create a sense of place with examples
illustrated at Exhibit 015 and 016.
vii. The Project will create landscape and hardscape connections to Kennedy Drive,
fostering a pedestrian connection with the existing neighborhoods to the north and
west.
viii. Project parking adjacent to Kennedy Drive will be heavily screened with dense plantings.
ix. The Project building and parking frontage deviates by no more the 25% from the
conceptual distances provided on any given side/street frontage at Exhibit 016.1.
22. Relatedly, the applicant has added a section of the design guide that references stories above
parking which Staff does not understand (middle of the second page of the design guide). Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to remove this section of the design guide.
9
We have changed the language here to clarify what is being noted, which is to require a set back
for any fifth story. The reason it says “stories above parking,” is to ensure that the intention of this
section is clear. The number of stories will be dependent on the calculation of average grade, as to
whether the basement or parking garage level is technically a “story,” under the City’s regulations. The
Applicant wants to make clear that its intention is any building with five stories over parking, would
require the fifth story to be stepped back. Buildings with four stories over parking (which may be
considered five stories under the regulations), would not require that step‐back.
24. Staff recommends the Board, if the applicant has not already discussed it in their general
presentation on the C1‐LR, ask the applicant to discuss their proposal and the alternative proposals
they considered. After hearing the applicant’s presentation, Staff recommends the Board consider a
finding that given the topography of the site, the applicant may locate parking between the building
and the street if the parking is at least 20‐ft higher than the adjoining road surface and generally
level of the finish floor elevation of the adjoining buildings (with allowances for grading for drainage)
under LDR 14.06B(2)(c):
Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking
areas located to the side of the building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half the
width of all building(s) located at the building.
25. Staff considers it to be within the Board’s authority to apply this standard to a block for a PUD rather
than a lot‐by‐lot basis. Staff notes that under the now‐current LDR, this standard is changed to
require the total width of parking to be no greater than the total width of buildings and civic spaces
(increased from one half).
We appreciate the Board’s preliminary finding and discussion during our hearings and we agree
that reviewing the parking to the rear and sides of buildings based on the larger PUD is the correct path
forward, and is the benefit of a planned unit development that takes a wholistic look at a development
parcel. This is accurate to the intention of the PUD regulations, and as we discussed at Public Hearing 2,
it provides for a much better design of this area. The Applicant would appreciate if the Board’s findings
here can make clear that for future applications, the parking will be reviewed under the current LDR
standard for building width. To the degree possible, it would be good if the current standard/test of the
current regulations can be the finding put in place for all applications within this PUD, to ensure future
changes to that language do not prevent the PUD from being built as now contemplated and
conceptually approved.
26. The applicant is requesting this finding be removed because they consider the high‐quality street
presence to be ensured by other findings. Staff would support the applicant’s request if a build‐to‐
zone is included as described above, and recommends the Board discuss.
The Applicant believes the conceptual layout as shown to be buildable. To satisfy this concern of Staff,
the Applicant would suggest adding a tenth criterion to the above list for future review, pertaining to
build‐to‐line. It would be good if future discussions around this issue could be context sensitive, grading
or other factors could impact what is feasible. Perhaps the building need not be so close, but a porch or
plaza could be. The Applicant would recommend language such as: “The Project is in keeping with the
setbacks and build to lines shown in the conceptual layout, with reasonable exceptions for building
design and site grading.”
10
28. This condition has not been incorporated. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
comply with the condition of preliminary plat.
The design guide has been amended. An asterisk is added to this item explaining a 5’
uninterrupted sidewalk must be provided. See the updated design guide at Exhibit 018.
3. Public Hearing 3 and Staff Report 3: Below please find relevant excerpts and responses
from the Public Hearing 3.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow certain buildings to be one story or to
have the appearance of two stories. Staff considers the Board may choose to limit such an allowance
to buildings under a certain footprint, or buildings on the interior of the C1‐LR district without
frontage on Kennedy, Kimball, Old Farm or O’Brien Farm Road.
The Applicant discussed this with the Board at Public Hearing 3. The Applicant has amended the
design guide in line with this conversation to include exceptions to the 2‐story height minimum for the
two lots where all agreed a one‐story building was acceptable. The updated design guide is attached at
Exhibit 018. The lots discussed where a one‐story building would be acceptable are Lot 17 and Lot 26
due to their location set well above adjacent roads, and their orientation toward the center of the
Project.
Due to designation of Lot 4 as a sensitive archaeological resource area, the applicant has
removed proposed development from this lot. They have indicated in their narrative that they
have provided an easement, but no such easement is shown on the provided plat plans. Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide a 20‐ft easement in the location of the
future trail as shown on the City’s official map. Staff considers since no development is
proposed, a simple easement is sufficient.
The Applicant has updated the Plat plans to include this easement as requested. Please review
and advise with any issues.
The telecom cabinet on Lot 42 conflicts with the proposed driveway. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to relocate the cabinet outside the right of way as a condition of
approval.
This is addressed in the updated plan set, and no condition of approval is needed. Please review
and advise with any questions.
2. The applicant has provided a plan demonstrating their proposal. Staff considers the larger spacing
should still result in the feeling of a treed street when trees reach maturity, perhaps to include larger
trees or more varied, rather than simply taking the same trees and spacing them farther apart. Staff
recommends the Board review the alternative tree spacing plan and determine whether to accept it.
As discussed at the hearing, the Applicant adjusted the street tree spacing in the plans to be an
average of 40’. The updated plans are included with this submission. The landscaping budget originally
submitted at Exhibit 042, contained two different line items for street trees, one with spacing at 30’ and
another with spacing at 40’. Given this, no update to the estimated landscape cost is required and
Exhibit 042 remains accurate.
11
3. At the dog park amenity, the area where landscaping would be located is not yet programmed (will
be the perimeter of the C1‐LR zoning district). Staff recommends the Board determine whether to
require additional landscaping at the dog park parking area.
The Board indicated this area was fine as‐is. Given this no additional landscaping has been
added to the Project plans at this location.
4. In the barn area parking, no curbing is proposed, and the sidewalk is proposed to be differentiated
from the parking by using different colored gravel. Curbing is recommended for protection of both
landscaping and pedestrians. Staff considers a softer option, such as curb stops or bollards, could be
effective and recommends the Board direct the applicant to propose a solution.
The Applicant has added concrete sidewalks to the barn parking area as discussed at the
hearing. While the Applicant preferred a flush sidewalk and parking area, a curb has been added in this
location at the request of the Board. Project plans have been updated and are attached.
5. Staff instead recommends the Board provide a waiver within the residential area of the front setback
requirement to 10‐ft, with open porches or decks less than 12‐ft in depth allowed to encroach into
the front setback up to 5‐ft. Staff recommends a waiver within the residential area of side and rear
setbacks to 5‐ft. Staff also recommends the Board include a condition that for street‐facing garages
there be enough room between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car
without overhanging the sidewalk, or that there be clearly not enough room (ie a car would be in the
street).
The Applicant has reviewed the plans to determine if this condition will allow for all the homes
to be built as planned within the PUD. We understand the intention of the Board and staff to be a
specific condition and waiver that allows the plans to be built as contemplated. We believe that this
finding works, with a couple of exceptions. Specifically, we need to clarify that for the homes fronting
on Old Farm Road and Leo Lane, they have two fronts, such that the setback on Old Farm and Leo Lane,
is 5’ to the porches/decks. We also need a specific exception for Lot 20‐3, 20‐4, 20‐6, 20‐21, 20‐23, 20‐
24 and 20‐26, to be allowed a 5’ setback to the building itself as depending on what unit is built in this
location it may not meet the test of this finding. Lastly, we would suggest that a depth of 20’ be
provided between the garage door and the nearest travelled way, be it a roadway, sidewalk or rec‐path,
which is a distance sufficient to park one car.
Porches: The applicant requests that all single family, duplex and three family homes may
convert their porches to covered porches with only the issuance of a zoning permit. Porches
are generally considered to be covered and constitute building footprint, while decks are
uncovered and do not count as building footprint, though they do count as lot coverage. The
Board directed the applicant to clarify this request at final plat. The applicant has provided
the following statement.
The Applicant understands the Board and Staff to be saying that the conversion of a back deck
to be a covered deck, screened in deck, or three season deck, requires only a zoning permit, and will be
allowed at the time of issuance of a zoning permit, with no amendment to the PUD. If this is the case,
we do not require any waivers. Please also confirm that the front porches may be screened in, without
amendment to the PUD, with issuance of a zoning permit.
12
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss and provide DPW an opportunity to consider and provide
feedback on any proposal.
Further to the direction of the Board, the Applicant has met with DPW to understand the
concerns related to timing of the installation of dedicated left turn lanes on Kimball Avenue. We
now understand that a primary concern is that the re‐stripping of the roadway to add a turn lane in
the existing width, will necessarily limit/remove bike lanes in place. The removal of these bike lanes
should not happen prior to the installation of the new off‐road bike connection and rec path
planned by the Project. However, that improvement is tied to later phases of the Project that may
not happen for some time. Given this concern, the Applicant will not include the restriping of
Kimball Ave in its planned relocation of Old Farm Road. That re‐stripping will be performed when
warranted, and likely simultaneous with the signalization of the intersection.
The Applicant does not believe any reservation of funds to be necessary, as future
development will simply require the installation and be conditioned upon it. Just as is the case at
the Existing Hillside phase. The Project is already burdened with significant and complex permitting
requirements and bonding requirements, and further layers of regulation here seem to have
relatively limited impact, with potential for significant delay, and added difficulty in administration
for all parties. The reality is that the Applicant will not be able to build development that will
require these improvements if a bond is not put in place to guarantee them prior to starting work.
9. At preliminary plat, the Board found that the applicant must enumerate permanent and temporary
wetland and wetland buffer impacts as part of the final plat application package. No numerical
assessment of impacts has been provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide areas in square feet of permanent and temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts.
Please see Exhibit 215, Wetland Disturbance Summary for the information requested here and
advise with any questions.
Staff recommends the Board retain the following two preliminary plat findings as conditions
of final plat approval.
There shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between
Kimball Ave and O’Brien Farm Road.
As mentioned at Public Hearing 3, the conceptual layout for the C1‐LR which was reviewed at
Public Hearing 2, and which is being permitted in this PUD, contains two curb cuts on the eastern side of
Old Farm Road, between Kimball Avenue and O’Brien Farm Road extension. We would request this
condition be adapted to account for that.
The proposed cul‐de‐sac has three driveways which are proposed to be located off of it. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to orient the driveways perpendicular to the arc
of the cul‐de‐sac and not perpendicular to the centerline of the street. This may require
adjustment of the angle of the homes as well. Further, the cul‐de‐sac should be signed for No
Parking as it is designed to be the minimum size necessary for vehicular circulation.
The Applicant was not able to modify these driveways.
We would like to discuss these concerns with DPW and determine how best to address the issue
13
and hope that this can be addressed as a condition of approval for this phase in the future.
Commercial roads are required by 15.12D(2) to be built to public roadway standards and be
dedicated to the City as a public roadway. LDR 14.06 requires parking to be located to the
rear or side of the building relative to the public street. The applicant is concerned that by
offering a ROW, they will be required to locate parking to the rear or side relative to the ROW.
Staff recommends the Board require the road to be built to public roadway standards but
include a condition that the road is not intended to remain a private road, as allowed under
15.12D(3)(a): The DRB may it is discretion approve a roadway to be private if the proposed
roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD).
Based on our conversation at Public Hearing 3, I believe that the yellow highlighted text above
may be an error, and intended to read: “The road IS intended.” We agree that the road should remain
private and we are happy to accept this condition, unless the text above is not a typo, in which case we
would want to discuss this further with the Board.
Heights
151 homes are proposed in the R1‐PRD, and 4 homes are proposed in the C1‐LR. Heights in both
zoning districts are limited to 28‐ft for a pitched roof. Height waivers for the C1‐LR district are
discussed above and will be incorporated into this section of the final plat decision. The provided
homes appear able to accommodate the required maximum height, taking into consideration
that height is measured from average pre‐construction grade. Staff considers this criterion met.
The Applicant had not considered that the granting of Final Plat approval, to construct homes
per the plan sets provided at the exact specifications provided, did not grant a height waiver for the
construction of that plan if needed. Recently, another project with final plat approval was appealed on
its zoning permit due to a height issue. During Public Hearing 3, the Applicant discussed this issue with
the Board to try and determine how we can be sure that the homes proposed can be built where
proposed. Unfortunately, the most expeditious method for this, is for the Applicant to provide height
and grade information for every footprint lot in the Project.
As discussed with the Board, attached as Exhibit 220, please find a spreadsheet that looks at
every footprint lot in the development. The spreadsheet details the current existing grade (as it exists
now), it also determines the “Preconstruction Grade,” as will be used when calculating height. As the
Board may know, during PUD approval, the Board may establish preconstruction grade. The purpose of
this is to allow for grades to be set in correlation to adjacent roadways. The Project is a great example
of why this is necessary. As the roadways proposed make there way across the lands, sometimes there
are large fills needed, and sometimes large cuts of land needed, to keep the road an even slope that is
safe for driving. In some areas, if height was relative to the current grade, homes would be limited to
less than one story if the road is sitting on 10 or more feet of fill.
The chart attached at Exhibit 220 provides the current grade, the average pre‐construction
grade, and the height of the home relative to that grade. The lots where the height is colored in yellow
require height waivers as the calculated height is more the 28’. To be conservative and because there
are a number of issues that can arise in determining height, such as which roof plane is the one you
measure to the center of, we have added a 1’ contingency to all the calculated heights, and sought a
waiver to that height. While this may not be necessary, the intention here is only to ensure that we do
14
not have any issues in building the project to the exact plans and specifications being approved by the
Board here today.
Lastly, you will note that on some lots we have added a column indicating that a waiver to be 3‐
stories facing the street is required. The townhomes that face O’Brien Farm Road Extension are the
same model currently built at Hillside along O’Brien Farm Road. This model is built into the uphill side of
the road and therefore the garage is under the main living floors, creating three stories facing the street.
Though the lower story is a basement, the regulations appear to count that as a story, and therefore a
waiver is required to allow three stories facing the public street in this location.
12. The applicant proposes to achieve a four‐bedroom unit by providing a finished basement. The
applicant has indicated that they are not committing to four‐bedroom units and are instead leaving
the option of whether to provide three or four bedrooms to the home buyer. If four‐bedroom units
are not provided, the project will not achieve the required minimum number of inclusionary units.
Staff therefore considers the Board should require the applicant to commit to the specified bedroom
mix or instead commit to a higher number of 3‐bedroom or smaller units. Whichever solution, Staff
considers the commitment must be made now, at this final plat stage of review.
The Applicant was not aware of a provision in the zoning regulations cited in Staff Report 3,
which states the following: “Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit, that is not initially
constructed as a bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than
one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.”
The three‐bedroom unit that the Applicant has designed to be the inclusionary ownership unit,
includes a basement that is unfinished, which can be finished to become a bedroom. When finished,
this additional bedroom and flex room creates a very nice space, and increases the finished square
footage of the home to be just under 2,000 square feet. This space meets the exact qualifications listed
in the provision above. This means that all of the 3‐bedroom homes that the Applicant is offering for
sale, are 4‐bedroom homes, under the inclusionary zoning ordinance. This fact is important in
confirming the number and location of inclusionary units proposed.
If all of the inclusionary units are 4‐bedroom as defined in the inclusionary ordinance, and the
Project is not using any bonus offset units, the required number of 4‐bedroom inclusionary units is 8.
These units are: 20‐2, 20‐5, 20‐8, 20‐11, 20‐16, 20‐19, 20‐23, 20‐25. These units have the benefit of
being in the first phase of construction and will be delivered early in the Project. It was originally
discussed that if additional inclusionary units were required, the cottages on Lot 16 would be provided.
However, the cottages are not necessary as the requirement is met entirely on Lot 20.
The Applicant has consistently stated that it needs to sell both three and four bedroom units to
allow for buyers to have choice. Previously, we have provided a best guess as to what we thought the
market might be, but the Applicant is grateful it can use this provision to ensure that the Applicant can
offer both 3‐bedroom and 4‐bedroom homes to market, while the City also gets the clarity it needs on
meeting the regulations.
The Applicant will offer to finish the basement for any buyer who qualifies and is looking for four
complete bedrooms. The Applicant will simply sell the home as a 3‐bedroom without the finished
basement for any buyer who wants a 3‐bedroom. The use of the unfinished basement provision for
counting the units, has enabled this flexibility on the sales side, which was discussed extensively at
15
Public Hearing 3. The Applicant believes the path forward outlined above is compliant with the
regulations and also provides flexibility to buyers who can choose how many bedrooms they want in
their home.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their stabilization plan to comply with
the timelines in the City’s erosion and sediment control measures. Where bare rock is left exposed,
or excavation is within a fully contained depression, erosion control measures are not necessary.
The Applicant has worked to incorporate all of the plan edits and requests from the DPW related
to erosion control and stormwater, and believes that the provided plans adequately address these
questions. The Applicant has worked directly with DPW in review of these plan changes.
4. Park Space Update:
The Applicant has met with the Department of Public works and the City Parks and Recreation
Staff and discussed the proposed parks and park ownership. We believe that all parties are aligned and
that a common plan is represented in the Project plans. The offers of dedication submitted with the
Application reflect the nature of our conversations so far, and can be modified as needed prior to zoning
permits for the phases in which they are contained. It seems that other details such as maintenance
agreements, or accessibility standards and construction of park elements can also be handled as
conditions of approval or acceptance by the City, and we hope that this can be the method to proceed
forward. As requested, we have attached here as Exhibit 221 a concept plan for Lot 18, demonstrating
more active uses. We have also reduced the size of the Lot 19 natural play area lot, leaving the play
area and park area on its own lot, and creating a separate lot for the stormwater facility which will not
be owned/operated by the City.
5. Conclusions and Next Steps:
The Applicant began discussions with the City of South Burlington about this Project in earnest
in 2019. Submitting a Sketch Plan application in January of 2020. We had our first Sketch Plan hearing
in April of 2020. Since that time, the Applicant, Staff and the Development Review Board have worked
together to progress this project through this final plat approval. The Applicant is pleased we have
reached this point, and is appreciative of the time and energy invested by the Board and Staff in getting
here.
The foregoing materials are the final updates to items that have been discussed and agreed
previously. We are hopeful that all updates are in order, and that the plans and exhibits reflect
everything we have agreed to do over the course of the last three years. We are excited about this
neighborhood and for what the future holds in the Eastview Development.
At this point, we are hopeful that any remaining issues can be left as conditions of approval,
such that we may proceed to Act 250 and complete our permit process to start construction in January.
As the Board deliberates and works with staff to write this decision, we do ask that some care be given
to allow the Zoning Administrator flexibility in administering and issuing zoning permits. For instance,
that plan changes or conditions of approval in Phase 5 or Phase 6, need not be submitted or reviewed
until that phase is presented for start or zoning permit. That we focus attention on perfecting the
phases that are beginning, and not on perfecting every sheet in the 200 or so sheet plan set, before our
16
first phase can begin. We believe this will allow the project to proceed most expeditiously, and to bring
the much‐needed housing contemplated in this development to the market for spring of next year.
We appreciate your consideration of this final request; we look forward to our final hearing and
to the conclusion of this process. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development