HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-16-37 - Decision - 0255 Kennedy DriveF,-11MI-IRtJ
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
O'BRIEN FARM ROAD, LLC-255 KENNEDY DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-37
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development on 39.16
acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy
Drive.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on February 7, March 7, April 18, and May 2, 2017. The
applicant was represented by Evan Langfeldt and Andrew Gill.
Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review
Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, O'Brien Farm Road, LLC, seek preliminary plat approval for a planned unit development on
39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255
Kennedy Drive.
2. The owners of record of the subject properties are O'Brien Family Limited Partnership and O'Brien Home
Farm, LLC.
3. The subject properties are located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1 with Limited Retail, and Residential
1-PRD Zoning Districts.
4. The application was received on December 23, 2016.
5. The plan submitted consists of 58 pages with the second page titled "Preliminary Plat" and dated 12/16/16
and the third page titled "Overall Site Plan," dated 12/16/16 and revised 2/15/2017. These plan pages
were prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Zoning district and dimensional standards will be reviewed at the final plat stage of the process.
B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the
following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
1
A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and
wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies.
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and
adjacent properties.
Conformance with the criterion will be evaluated at the final plat stage of the review process.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The Public Works Department provided the following comments in an email to staff dated February 2, 2017,
which addresses issues related to this criteria:
In addition to numerous internal staff meetings on the project, a few with the developer present, I hove also met
independently with the developer's team four times during this project's process. Many design topics have been
covered, the main ones listed below.
1. Roadway geometry — standard road profile and cross -sections, turning radii, both horizontal and vertical
road curvature, on -street parking, driver sight and stop distances and possible future maintenance issues
2. Pedestrian issues — sidewalk locations/design, crosswalk locations and level of protection, bike facilities,
lighting levels for peds and overall road interconnectivity plans both internally and connecting to the
existing external road network
3. Traffic — discussion and final agreement on appropriate ITE land use codes for the traffic study, overall
transportation land use with an eye toward maximizing ingress/egress points, final PM peak hour trips and
geometry and layout of the proposed new signal at the project's eastern Kennedy Drive access point
4. Phasing of construction —from a constructability and maintenance prospective a// the way to the process
of transferring ownership of infrastructure to the City
There remain many detailed items to be fleshed out as the project transitions from its master plan process to the
submission of specific phases. Those include:
5. VTrons' response to the proposed crosswalk connecting Eldridge to Hayes, including their required
advanced signage and level of protection
6, Specific design of the proposed signal referenced in 3. above including method of detection (video, rodar,
infrared, etc.); timing plan, coordination with the adjacent Kennedy Drive signals at Kimball, Williston and
Hinesburg, be it via offset progression timing or a fully interconnected system; and once these details are
determined a LOS for the intersection con be arrived at and evaluated
I find it may be appropriate to eventually ask for and conduct an independent technical review of the traffic study
as allowed by the development review process, I cannot provide a recommendation on whether or not this would
be worthwhile until more details are made available as the project progresses, specifically as related to items 5.
and 6.
Having spent countless hours reviewing the plans and traffic study, as well as in meetings with other city staff and
the.developer's design team, there are likely small items inadvertently obsent from my above list. If you think of
anything of import that I haven't touched on, please let me know.
2
#SD-16-37
Thanks,
Justin Rabidoux
Director of Public Works
The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met, but specifically retains the right to require additional information
which may include technical review.
(A)(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
The Board notes that during the Master Plan phase of this project the Board granted the applicant the ability to
encroach on Class III wetlands. No unique natural features have been identified on the site, though the Board
notes that as South Burlington becomes increasingly developed the forested and open nature of this parcel
becomes less common in the City and, therefore, more unique. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met.
(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
The purpose of the Residential 12 Zoning District is to encourage high -density residential use. The proposed
project included in this preliminary plat is not high -density. The Master Plan for this site, however,
contemplates as many as 458 housing units, which would bring the density of the site to nearly 12 units per
acre. The Board preliminarily finds the proposed project meets the purpose of the R12 Zoning District when
viewed as part of the larger Master Plan vision for the site.
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The proposed project provides for an open space area in the middle of the site (Lot #6 and open space easements
associated with Lots #7 and #9) and another open space area as part of Lot #8. Two (2) 30 foot wide easements
connect the open spaces of Lot #6 with undeveloped land to the east. This creates the opportunity for contiguous
open spaces between adjoining parcels. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure
that adequate fire protection can be provided.
The Fire Marshall shared with the Board on 3/2/2017 and 4/28/17 that the Fire Department found the plans
acceptable and reiterated a comment they had previously shared with the applicant: that no parking signs be
required on new streets "C," "D," and "F," which are only proposed to be 20 feet wide. The Board preliminarily
finds this criterion met.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
3
#SD-16-37
The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met. A detailed review of these infrastructure features will be
undertaken at the final plat stage of review.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads,
recreation paths, and sidewalks.
See the discussion above regarding comments from the Public Works Department.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A concern in the Northwest Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the "spotty" presence of
neighborhood parks and open space. The applicant has proposed a formal park space as well as mostly
undeveloped (except for walking paths) open space areas. The Board preliminarily finds that these features
are supportive of the goals of the Plan; however, the Board also notes that the Official Map contains a notation
pertaining to this project:
Blue circle #5 refers to creation of on appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O'Brien
farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an
immediately adjacent area.
The Board preliminarily finds that the parkland and open space proposed at the project site is sufficient to
meet the requirements of the notation referenced on the Official Map.
On March 20, 2017 the City Council approved a minor change to the Official Map pursuant to 24 VSA 4421(2),
relocating the planned roadway between Eldredge Street and Old Farm Road to a location consistent with the
location indicated in this application. The Board preliminarily finds the planned roadway connection to comply
with the Official Map.
(A)(11) The project's design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from
developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to
where it hits the ground.
The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met.
C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site
plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following
general review standards for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
4
##SD-16-37
This criterion has been discussed above.
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.
The Board preliminarily finds the site landscaping and architecture of the proposed housing units supports the
applicant meeting this criterion.
(2) Parking:
(a) ...
(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.) ...
(ii.) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home
Parking is proposed in the driveways in front of the single and two-family houses. Materials submitted by the
applicant indicate that vehicles could be parked in a driveway and though those vehicles may be in the ROW
they would not be across sidewalks or into the street. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met and
parking in front of single and two-family houses to be preliminarily acceptable.
The applicant is also proposing integrated sidewalks on new streets "C," "D," and "F." The Board received an
email from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee dated 2/28/2017 which stated that the Committee endorses
the integrated/grade level sidewalks without barriers along one (1) side of new streets "C," "D," and "F," but
that they would like to see delineation between the street and sidewalk. The Committee would like the
delineation to be in the form of the sidewalk portion being a different color from the road part and they would
prefer the color be built into the paving material rather than using paint that would need continued
maintenance. The Board preliminarily finds this integrated sidewalk concept to be acceptable.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of
each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings.
The proposed single and two-family houses come in a variety of styles, footprint sizes, and number of stories;
however, the Board finds that they have similarities and no one style is so different in height or scale as to be
incompatible with any other style. The applicant is requesting height and story waivers, which will be discussed
elsewhere in this decision.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or
building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials
and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping,
5
#SD-16-37
buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of
different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
The Board finds the architectural designs as well as the relationship of the designs to each other to be acceptable.
Some of the proposed houses will be on the uphill side of the new streets and therefore pushed into the hillside.
The applicant is requesting height and story waivers for buildings in those locations, which will be discussed in
greater detail elsewhere in this decision.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards
as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
1. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land maybe required on any lot for provision of access
to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or
collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general
access and circulation in the area.
The applicant is proposing an easement or right-of-way at the north end of new city street "A," which would allow
that street to connect to the existing Old Farm Road. Additionally the applicant has included two (2) pedestrian
easements connecting the site area under current review with other parcels also held by the applicant (or
associates) on which development is not presently proposed, but will likely be proposed in the future. The Board
preliminarily finds this criterion met.
2. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a
harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service
modifications must be underground.
3. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with
any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque
fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The applicant is not proposing any dumpsters or other facilities.
4. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening is
required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the buildings in the project is
estimated at $33,040,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $337,900 and
the applicant is proposing $388,358.35.
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Cost of proposed project
$0 - $250,000
3%
$7,500
Next $250,000
2%
$5,000
1.1
#SD-16-37
Additional over $500,000 $325,400
nlMinimum Landscaping $ $337,900
1%
Proposed Landscaping $388,358.35
The Board received the following comments from the City Arborist on 3/10/2017:
Species Selection:
Overall the mix of species is good with the following recommendations:
• Recommend a substitute for Austrian Pine. Austrian Pine is very susceptible to a variety of fungal
disease problems which result in dieback, poor appearance and/or death of the tree
• 'Canada Red' Cherry is highly susceptible to Black Knot disease and a substitute is recommended. Some
possible suggestions are Amur Chokecherry(seems to be less susceptible), Korean Mountain Ash, Amur
Moackia
• 'Princeton' Elm generally exhibits a very tight branching habit which I believe will result in structurally
compromised trees as the trees mature. Some superior elm varieties include 'Jefferson', 'Accolade',
'Triumph' and 'Regal'
General Comments:
• In several locations, trees are located within 5-6 feet of street lights. Relocate trees a minimum of 15
ft. from lights where possible to reduce conflicts
• On sheet L1.5 one 'Red Sunset' Maple is located in a driveway
• Relocate trees in the greenbelt to maximize the separation between driveways and utilities. In several
instances trees are located close to driveways or underground utilities when there appears to be a
larger unoccupied soil volume
• Need Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specs
• Trees where Tree Protection measures are to be employed need to be specified on the plans
• Should provide written Tree Protection Specs and penalties for non-compliance
• Plans for the park need to be reviewed by Andrew Noonan to ensure compliance with safety standards
The applicant has indicated they have responded to the comments of the City Arborist; however, the Board
has not yet received updated comments from the Arborist. This decision will reflect that the Board supports
the comments of the City Arborist and final plat plans should comply with those comments.
D) RECREATION & BIKE/PEDESTRIAN
In addition to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee comments already discussed above, the Committee also
stated in their email to the Board dated 2/28/2017 that the Committee asked the applicant to ensure that a
pedestrian path connecting the development to Old Farm Road be constructed in an early phase of the project.
The pedestrian path referenced by the Committee which would connect to Old Farm Road is shown in part on
plan sheet C-6; however, the plan sheet is cutoff before the connection is shown. The Board finds that a
pedestrian path connecting the development to Old Farm Road should be part of the phasing plan for the
project.
The Recreation and Parks Committee endorsed the phasing of the proposed park amenities at their meeting on
March 20, 2017.
7
#SD-16-37
E) PHASING/BONDING
The applicant has suggested the following phasing guidelines:
1. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be the first phases on which construction will begin and they may begin at
the same time or separately.
2. Park amenities will be installed and constructed once 59 housing units are sold; however, the
applicant may limit access for safety purposes if needed while construction of other units is
ongoing.
3. Park amenities will be limited to the play structure and lower park area shown on Landscape Plan
Sheet L1.4 until Phase 3, Phase 4, and Phase 5 are constructed in full and all homes located on the
outside edge of the park are constructed. If all of the houses on the outside edge of the park are
constructed before Phases 3, 4, and 5 are complete then the additional park amenities, including
trails, will be constructed at that time.
4. Trails surrounding the stormwater pond on Lot #6 will be constructed following the completion of
all homes in Phases 2 and 4
5. Phase 6 will be constructed simultaneously with a building on Lot #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, or #15
and will not be constructed unless a building on one of those lots is approved.
6. Phase 7 will be constructed simultaneously with a building on Lot #11 or #13.
7. Prior to the construction of the 50`h unit accessed on new city street "E" the remaining street
phases will be constructed so that no more than 49 units are ever located on a dead end street.
The applicant would decide whether to construct the street to Kennedy Drive or only to connect
with new city street "A."
The Board notes that the Master Plan (#MP-16-03) states that the applicant is granted a waiver from the
requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) regarding pedestrian access easements only if the off -road pedestrian
paths are constructed during the first phase of the project. The Board finds that the phasing suggested in #3
and #4 above would be in conflict with this waiver. The Board finds that items #3-4 of the phasing plan will be
addressed at final plat. The Board finds that items #1-2 and #5-7 of the phasing plan are preliminarily
acceptable. Approval of the complete phasing plan will be addressed at the final plat stage of the process.
In addition to the phasing items above, the applicant also proposes the following related item:
8. The applicant will be able to install any haul roads, construction staging areas, or other
construction related facilities in any location at any time on the project site.
The Public Works Department stated in a phone call on 3/2/2017 that the Department did not have an issue
with this item.
The applicant has not addressed the issue of bonding for roads and related improvements. The Board finds
this issue should be addressed during final plat review.
F) STORMWATER
The Board received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated 3/10/2017:
The Storm water Section has reviewed the "O'Brien Nome Farm"site pion prepared by Krebs & Lansing
Consulting Engineers, dated 12116/16 and last updated on 2120117. We would like to offer the following
comments:
E
#S D-16-37
1. This project is located in both the Potash Brook and watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the project
proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It
will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater
Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction.
2. The project proposes impacts to class 2 wetlond buffer. These impacts are only allowed in conjunction
with issuance of a wetlands permit by the Vermont DEC.
3. As the project proposes to create more than one-half acre or more of impervious surface, the project is
subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs.
a. The City's Land Development Requirements (LDRs) require infiltration of the Water Quality
Volume (WQv), unless it is not feasible due to site conditions outlined in Section 12.03(C)(1)(0).
The applicant has indicated that "The only area with soil depths suitable for infiltration occur
near the end of Road "C". However, this area is located in an approximately 4' cut." Following a
discussion with the applicant discussing how a proposed road does not qualify as a site
constraint and does not relieve the applicant from meeting requirements of the LDRs, the
applicant has proposed conducted further soil test pits near the end of Road C.
4. The applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(1) are met and that the Water
Quality Volume is infiltrated using Low Impact Development (LID).
a. In accordance with the VSMM §2.7.5.B, open channels shall be designed to safely convey
the 10-year storm with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard. It is requested that the
applicant provide information on the water levels in the proposed gross_ channels during
the 10-year storm to ensure flooding of units does not occurs.
b. Provide modeling showing that "Grass Channels 1-3 have been designed between the units
for water quality treatment" as indicated in email dated 4120117. The peak velocity for the
1-year storm must be non -erosive (see Appendix D7 of the VSMM).
5. The applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(2) are met and that peak runoff
rates are not increased during the 1 year storm event.
6. The applicant is required to submit the additional information outlined in Section 12.03(D), so that
compliance with the City's Stormwater Management Standards can be evaluated.
7. Storm drains proposed to be taken over by the City will require a 20' easement, centered on pipe, free
of structures or obstructions. As shown, some of the storm drains are less than 10' from building
foundations.
8. Tress should not be planted within easements for storm drains proposed to be taken over by the City.
9. The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) indicates that a 12' wide maintenance access
should be provided in order to facilitate equipment access for maintenance of stormwater ponds
(section 2.7.1.F).
10. Stormwoter Management "C" shows outlet structure near foreboy berm. The riser should be located so
that short-circuiting between inflow points and the riser does not occur. Section 2.7.1.D of the VSMM
recommends maintaining a long flow path through the system. Additionally, it is not recommend to
place the Emergency Spill way over the outlet pipe, as depicted on the Sheet C-9.
11. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Dave Wheeler
9
#SD-16-37
The applicant has indicated they have responded to the comments of the Stormwater Section. This decision
will reflect that the Board supports the comments of the Stormwater Section and final plat plans should
comply with those comments.
G) WAIVERS
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
(a) Height and number of stories facing the street to be greater than 28 feet and three (3) stories
Pursuant to Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) the Board may grant a waiver to building heights in the R-12 and C1-
LR Districts as follows:
For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a
planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements
of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for
approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plon(s) showing the elevations and
architectural design of the structure, pre -construction grade, post -construction grade, and height of the
structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views
from adjacent public roadways and other public rights -of -way.
The Board finds the requirements for a height waiver have been preliminarily met and the decision will reflect
the preliminary approval of a height waiver.
(b) Front yard setbacks
(i.) Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A and 11 foot front setback for RaraRes on Street
A
(ii.) Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E and 11 % foot front setback for garages on
Street E
(iii.) Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on streets C, D, and
F
The Board finds the front yard setback waiver requests to be preliminarily acceptable and the decision will
reflect the preliminary approval of those waivers.
(c) Rear yard setbacks
The applicant provided a chart showing the setbacks for each footprint lot they are proposing. Thirty
of the 118 footprint lots showed a need for a rear yard setback waiver. Since footprint lots do not
exist for the purposes of zoning, the Board will instead refer to requests for rear yard setbacks for
buildings. The Board finds rear yard setbacks of 25 feet on Buildings 1-5, 27-30, 44-45, 48, 63, 73, and
95-96 are acceptable. The Board finds rear yard setbacks of 27 feet on Buildings 22 and 49, 13 feet on
Building 46, 14 feet on Building 47, 26 feet on Building 63, 20 feet on Building 64, 24 feet on Building
65, 21 feet on Building 66, 22 feet on Building 67, and 27 feet on Building 68 are acceptable. The
Board finds rear yard setbacks of 27 feet on Building 73, 19 feet on Buildings 74 and 75, 20 feet on
Building 76, 28 feet on Building 95, and 26 feet on Building 76 are acceptable. The decision will reflect
the preliminary approval of these waivers.
10
#SD-16-37
(d) Impact fees
The applicant has requested that a portion of the impact fees which would be assessed for the project
be waived in light of in -kind contributions, i.e. parks development which will be done by the applicant
instead of the City. There are a number of steps to follow for seeking an impact fee credit for in -kind
contributions, which are described in Section 7 of the Impact Fee Ordinance. The Board considers it
would be useful for the applicant to work with staff on this request and seek it at the final plat stage of
review.
H) SUBDIVISION
The Board finds the proposed lots are acceptable in regards to their layout and access when viewed as part of
a master planned area, PUD, and in light of the project proposed as part of this preliminary plat.
nFCISInN
Motion by Matt Cota, seconded by Jennifer Smith, to approve preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of
O'Brien Farm Road, LLC subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.
2. This project must be completed as shown on the preliminary plat plans submitted by the applicant and on
file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The applicant must receive preliminary wastewater and water allocations prior to final plat approval.
4. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of any zoning permits.
5. The Board preliminarily approves the following waivers to allow:
a. Height equal to or less than the number of feet listed in the Building Height column of the Building
Height Worksheet (which is found on the CD dated 4/7/2017) plus two (2) feet (Example: Building
1 lists 32.74 feet in the Building Height column and therefore the waiver would allow a building
height equal to or less than 34.74 feet)
b. Up to three (3) stories below the roofline facing the street on Buildings 75-96
c. Front yard setbacks of six (6) feet for buildings on Street A and 11 feet for garages on Street A
d. Front yard setbacks of six (6) feet for buildings on Street A and 11 % feet for garages on Street E
e. Front yard setbacks of five (5) feet for buildings on Streets C, D, and F and 10 feet for garages on
Streets C, D, and F
f. Rear yard setbacks of 25 feet on Buildings 1-5, 27-30, 44-45, 48, 63, 73, and 95-96
g. Rear yard setbacks of 27 feet on Buildings 22 and 49, 13 feet on Building 46, 14 feet on Building 47,
26 feet on Building 63, 20 feet on Building 64, 24 feet on Building 65, 21 feet on Building 66, 22
feet on Building 67, and 27 feet on Building 68
h. Rear yard setbacks of 27 feet on Building 73, 19 feet on Buildings 74 and 75, 20 feet on Building 76,
28 feet on Building 95, and 26 feet on Building 76
6. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and
service modifications must be underground.
11
#SD-16-37
7. The Board specifically retains the right to require additional information regarding the traffic impact study
which may include technical review.
8. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards
set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
9. The applicant will be responsible for regularly maintaining all stormwater treatment and conveyance
structures on -site.
10. The plans must be revised to show the changes below prior to final plat submission:
a. The Landscaping Plan must be revised to comply with the comments of the City Arborist.
b. The lighting plan must include the information necessary to meet the requirements of Section
13.07 of the Land Development Regulations.
c. The Stormwater Plan must be revised to comply with the comments of the Stormwater Section.
d. The plans must be revised to show 20 ft. easements for storm drains which are to be taken over by
the City as recommended by the stormwater section.
e. The Phasing Plan must be revised to indicate a phasing of pedestrian path construction that is not
in conflict with #MP-16-03.
f. The Building Height column of the Building Height Worksheet must be revised to list the actual
building height requested rather than listing a building height and requesting an additional two (2)
feet in addition to that number. (Example: if Building 1 is proposed to be no greater in height than
34.74 feet than that should be the number listed in the Building Height column rather than 32.74
feet.)
g. The plans must be updated to show the pedestrian path that will go from the end of new Street
"A" to Old Farm Road.
11. The final plat submittal must include street names and E911 addresses for new buildings in the proposed
project, in conformance with local ordinances and Vermont E911 addressing standards.
12. The final plat application must be submitted within 12 months of this decision.
Mark Behr
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Matt Cota
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Frank Kochman
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Bill Miller
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
David Parsons
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Jennifer Smith
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
John Wilking
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 5— 1— 0.
Signed thisl7th day of May 2017, by
Bill Miller, Chair
12
#SD-16-37
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a
notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and
Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please
contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements,
deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for
this project. Call 802.477-2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
13