HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04_SD-20-10_500 Old Farm Rd_OBrien Farm Road LLC_SK_supplement•The Applicant is seeking permits to construct 126 new for sale homes and townhomes which are spread across about 37 acres of land. •The proposed lot coverage for the structures and roads proposed in this program is less than 30%•What is currently proposed for construction represents a development of density and coverage less than Hillside Phase I single family being built now. •A framework is under review in this permit for road system improvements to facilitate the eventual development of apartments and commercial uses, but none are currently proposed.
•Exhibit 001 Sheet 10 shows the area in question. •Lot layouts and sample building footprints were provided. •Buildings will in general orient to the new four corners intersection creating a plaza of sorts. •Parking will be screened. •The applicant would not want to commit to particular uses on particular lots, but rather, as requested, would look to secure the lots proposed, and to then propose projects on those lots in subsequent phases of development. This application is creating a framework, and details of each subsequent part are not yet known.
•The Applicant’s original application made no prediction as to the amount of square footage in the IC•The City requested a number and because we do not know, we provided the maximum buildable area at 3‐stories in height.•None of this square footage is proposed now.•What is proposed is a compliant simple subdivision with no buildings.•The idea is that we will build a road, and then work to permit and construct compliant IC uses on a lot by lot basis in this area over many years.•The subdivision will be proposed through preliminary and final plat simultaneous with the other areas. No uses will be proposed, and we feel the review is fairly straightforward. •Community Drive is a good example of what we are proposing.•Tilley Drive is another example. •Meadowlands Business Park, is another example.
•An open space and park plan is provided at Exhibit 001 Sheet Two of the supplemental information sent 2/14/20.•As you will see, a large portion of the land is dedicate green space. 17.8 acres of 82.9 total. 21.5% of the land being developed is dedicated open space. •The full plan for these spaces is not yet known. •Current ideas are for:•A soccer field and community skating rink in winter.•A pool and community room facility at the barn, available to all owners in the project. •A large green and open area, over 1 acre flat located between the 12CCTA stop and the wetland (circled in red).•A fitness trail that will run down the corridor to the Tilly property line, cut down to the Pot‐ash brook and circle back to the multi‐family. •You also have the existing 4 acre Hillside park. As well as the multi‐acre existing stormwater trail picknick area. •Several pocket parks and play grounds will be built on the smaller green areas shown. •In addition to these dedicated green spaces, the Project will connect to the rec path in Hillside Phase I.•It will then connect to the Kennedy Drive Rec path
•The Applicant is happy to meet with the recreation and parks committee members as well as the bike and ped committee members and will seek to do so. •At this point, the Applicant does not have the programming specifically designed. The applicant will be proposing specific programming at Preliminary Plat•While we appreciate that large open spaces are common to neighborhoods, this particular neighborhood is located in a part of the City where the Comp Plan calls for High intensity Residential and High Intensity non‐residential users (see heat map at right). •We have 1/5 of the involved land as open space in a High Intensity development zone.•Additionally, the Applicant would note that its land is not flat. Space for large recreation fields is very limited, and one is provided where it is possible in this plan.Soccer Field
•Sheet 2 and Sheet 3 of the Exhibit 001 Provided on 2/14/20 show the interconnection between the existing and proposed plans. •Roads built in Phase I are continued.•Rec trails planned and ended are connected to.•Bike Paths are extended.•A pedestrian living in Phase I can walk via sidewalk, rec path, nature trail to any location in the entirety of the Master Plan, with direct and non‐circuitous routes. As shown. •We believe the connection is sufficient, extensive and well considered.
•Applicant has proposed density in line with the underlying districts as instructed above. •In some instances applicant will seek to move the zoning district line 50 feet in order to accommodate specific lots and the road networks and grading. •Applicant is happy to provide the board with a map of the area of each zoning district at the next stage of review. This map will also indicate any areas where zoning lines are requested to be moved 50’ or less per the allowance in the regulations to accommodate the project layout.
•This is best broken into three categories, residential for sale, residential rental and commercial/industrial. •Regarding Residential for Sale:•A specific and exact density will be provided at preliminary plat. Ongoing unit design and site plan work makes it difficult to know exact numbers now, but it should be within a close range to the 126 noted here. Please note, this is well short of the density allowed which is 163 units, constrained by coverage. •Residential Rental:•We will propose all the density which is allowed, and will have a firm number proposed at preliminary. However, with regard to the final projects presented, the number may vary and could fall short. This is not something we can know. If a larger commercial enterprise needs more parking, for instance, it may impact parking for apartments and limit the unit count. •This application is only creating a framework, the final project components are not known, and so by nature are uncertain. •What is know is future projects will need to comply with the zoning regulations and uses allowed, and this is the certainty we have.•Commercial and Industrial Commercial:•Regarding the commercial users, the uncertainty is because we do not know what businesses will be purchasing lots to develop projects on. •Our current proposal is not to build any commercial space. Space could be sold to an accounting firm, a light industrial manufacturer, google, a medical office building. The list of permitted uses in the regulations is extensive. All have different space, building and footage requirements. •We are simply unable to predict what will be built.•The zoning regulations will apply for site plan review to any use proposed on the lots we create. The uses will need to be compliant. All we are permitting with this application is the road network to support those eventual uses. •Zoning changes also may influence what is eventually built, as they have in our Phase I Hillside project.
•The applicant is advised by staff that coverage must comply on a district by district basis. •If the coverage is zoning district specific as advised, then the maximum coverage requested in the application is the maximum coverage allowed on a district by district basis. •We will not be reducing the coverage allowed in the master plan from what is allowed in the underlying regulations. •The coverage would be calculated by looking at impervious proposed in the land of each zoning district. The maximum coverage would be the coverage allowed in each district. •We will provide the total square feet of coverage requested on a district by district basis at the next level of review. It will be the equivalent of the total maximum coverage allowed in each district.
•The applicant would support the concept of Old Farm Road being a collector roadway, but would likely seek waivers regarding width if necessary to keep the road narrow for traffic calming purposes. •The road in the IC subdivision could certainly be considered as a collector and we would look to your guidance on that. •Applicant does not believe the other roads in the Project should be considered as collectors.
•The applicant is working with a traffic consultant currently and will propose a path forward that ensures unnecessary infrastructure is not built. •This is a concern for the Applicant as well, as infrastructure is very expensive to construct, and we are responsible for that. •The likely path forward is that the Applicant will propose trip counts and phases such that as trip counts are met or projected in a project proposed, phases of infrastructure (traffic related) are triggered. In this way we can know when each major infrastructure component is needed, and tie additional trips to that construction.
We will be sure our engineer reaches out, and will meet the requirements.
•The Applicant does not yet have a phasing plan assembled. We will be happy to provide such at the Preliminary Plat level. •If ledge is present, and we suspect that it is, Applicant will seek to use that ledge in the project as we did at Hillside. For what it is worth, we have estimated that total carbon emissions from Phase 1 were reduced by nearly 2000 tons, due to the reuse of on‐site stone. This is a major carbon reduction, and we hope to repeat this. Say nothing of the many thousands of truck trips that were never an issue for our neighbors. •With regard to the stormwater and erosion control, our current project at Hillside and what is proposed have a state individual stormwater permit required. We inspect the site bi‐weekly and report to the State. The state inspects the site frequently and requires changes as needed. •Applicant would request that the Board not increase the number of applications, approvals, etc., required for construction beyond the current requirements..•If the board wishes to require this additional condition, we would request that specific instances where we were asked to do something related to erosion control and did not do it, be provided.
•Applicant provided a memo regarding traffic in its 1/24/20 submission at Exhibit 6. •A preliminary analysis is provided indicating that the Project is likely to only send 2% of external residential and 5% of external commercial trips down Old Farm Road. •There is an EXISTING problem with cut‐through traffic at Old Farm and the project proposes to address this, at the City’ benefit, as well as the benefit of those currently living on Old Farm Road. •The specific traffic calming measures noted for consideration are outlined in our letter.•At preliminary plat, Applicant will make recommendations from an array of traffic calming measures: Gateways; Pinchpoints; Chicane; Speed Humps; Speed Tables; Raised Intersections; and Mini Roundabouts). These will be deployed along Old Farm Road to reduce cut‐through traffic, while simultaneously creating pedestrian friendly and well designed streetscapes. •The applicant did consider improvements at Hinesburg Road, but felt with that intersection having just been redone, and with it being a State controlled intersection, calming measures would be best deployed on the City Road, at the gateway to the project. The view of our consultant was that making the turn off Hinesburg Road harder would not necessarily address the issue of traffic speeding down the road. •Detailed proposals on traffic calming on this road will be provided.
•We are glad to hear City officials remain supportive of this intersection shift. We believe it is a great solution and much needed qualitative improvement for the City. Understanding support for this was a key finding we needed in moving to preliminary plat. •We expect this new intersection will be fully signalized, to be proven out by our upcoming traffic study. •The reason we divided the roadway was to create a grand entrance to the Project, with a treed/planted island in the middle. There will likely be the need for left and right turn lanes, a bike lane or other pedestrian lane, and so the 40’ of paved surface will likely be needed anyway.
•Schematic layouts for these buildings are provided. We have shown buildings fronting on the new and re‐oriented Farm road. We have shown parking lots fully screened from view from the public right of way, and we have shown buildings aligned with existing streets and new streets. •These layouts are provided at Exhibit 001, Sheet 10 of the submission dated 2/14/20. •Applicant is not aware of the requirement that buildings must be on streets, and would look for some additional guidance as to what specific standard this refers to and what the requirements are. •There are new developments in SB where buildings are not directly on the street, including the large apartment project on Shelburne Road, across from Chevrolet which is set hundreds of feet back, behind a bank. •However, in these schematic plans all buildings shown orient to Kennedy, Kimball, or a new City Street proposed. And so we are not sure what specifically is a concern and look for your guidance.
•That connection would only serve to facilitate cut‐through traffic on a small residential street, seeking to avoid the use of Old Farm Road, which is the designed collector with significant traffic calming planned. •While this cul‐de‐sac is required as a street by zoning rules, it is really a driveway to access 10 residential dwellings and two large parking areas for multi‐family buildings. •Continuation of the road would greatly reduce the size of the park, bisecting it. •Continuation would increase coverage in the R1 district which has a very low coverage tolerance and where we have sought to keep green space, it would eliminate several home sites.•Continuation would put impervious surface immediately adjacent to wetlands. •Continuation could require removal of significant archeological sites found by the Applicant that underly this park area. •Continuation would reduce the value of homes because it would be a safety concern for buyers with children worried about cut‐through traffic.•Continuation would put a road where you would otherwise have a large green park space.
•A pedestrian path is provided to connect residents to the employment center. •Applicant believes that these employment locations within a few thousand feet of homes can be accessed without a direct vehicular connection.•This reduces impervious surfaces and encourages activity and environmentally sustainable practices.•There is also significant grade change between these two areas, making a connection very challenging from a construction perspective. •The scale of traffic volume that is feasible in the IC lands is far above what the Applicant feels can be connected to a small neighborhood street like the eastern loop. Trip volumes could eventually be 1000 PM peak hour trips. •The Applicant does not feel connecting this to Old Farm Road is appropriate. This would greatly increase cut‐through traffic on Old Farm, a problem we are trying to solve.•The Applicant hopes that eventually the IC lands can be rezoned to allow for residential, at which point this connection could be appropriate. The applicant can leave enough room for a future connection.•The Applicant has provided for an eventual connection to Tilley Drive, which will give the IC land direct access to Hineburg Road•Given this, Applicant would not say the road proposed is a dead end. It is built to the edge of our property and available for connection in line with the road network on the City’s official map.
•The applicant looked extensively at how to connect these roads. •It is not feasible given the amount of grade change and the intersection details. You would be dropping cars down an incredibly steep and in winter (potentially icy) road, to an intersection with visibility issues on a corner, which is also already steep.•Given this, a vehicular connection was abandoned. •A pedestrian connection is mapped already, shown at Sheet 2 and Sheet 3 of Exhibit 001 submitted on 2/14/20. •The pedestrian connection was oriented across from the existing path in our Phase I project, rather than at the 90 degree vehicular intersection, as pedestrian traffic is presumed to follow the pedestrian paths.
•The area where this spur road is shown is on Lot 30 of the proposed development. •This is a driveway which is accessing five single family dwelling units. It is not a road or a proposed city street of any type, and therefore does not propose to be connected to any adjacent properties. It will be removed from the color overall rendering. •The location of the dwelling footprints is shown at Exhibit 005, SK‐2 of the submission dated 1/24/20.•This will be a very private and very rural feeling part of the development on R1 land, transitioning from the rural development immediately to the south, which consists of few homes on large lots. We feel this is an appropriate transition, and have designed it as such.•A large through road to a neighboring single family lot would be unnecessary in this R1 district where density just doesn’t exist to support so much infrastructure.
•At Exhibit 001 Sheet 3 the applicant has provided a map of pedestrian connectivity. •The pedestrian connections proposed continue the identical block length approved by the Board at Hillside. •The residential portion of this project is in a district that is coverage minimal. The maximum permitted coverage for all surfaces is only 25%. Adding additional mid‐block road connections will reduce the number of dwelling units that can be built.•We appreciate that this is a regulation, but it was previously waived in our Hillside plan by the Board, and we would request it be waived again. •A car will have to travel less than 1000 feet from any point on these loop roads to access the collector. This seems perfectly acceptable. •Current residents at Hillside have not raised issues with lack of mid‐block connections. •Where we do have a number of concerns in our current project is where paths cut next to homes. These pedestrian paths represent a very real market value issue. Homes adjacent to them have been reduced in price due to concerns from buyers about the public walking next to their home and private back yard space. •In reviewing the pedestrian connection plan it is hard to see where the current sidewalk, rec path and street networks are insufficient, and we hope this waiver can be issued.
•The large park and open space adjacent to the roundabout is adjacent to a wetland block. No impacts to wetland buffers are proposed. The applicant will show this on future plans submitted. The applicant will seek to use landscaping to delineate the buffers to ensure that no bleed‐over of development activities occurs. •The applicant is not impacting any Class II wetlands or buffers in this project. •Applicant will show these on future detailed civil sheets. The Potash brook is not really located on our property except for one incredibly minor location. The location of wetlands, brooks etc., is shown at Exhibit 002 X‐2 of the submission from 1/24/20.•The area where the brook is present is shown at the right. •In future plan sheets that are at a suitable detail and scale this will be added. •To be clear, no impacts to these important features are proposed, all will be protected per the guidelines of the State, City and Federal Government.
•The applicant provided an exhibit dedicated to connectivity in Exhibit 001 of the 2/14/20 submission. Sheet 2 and Sheet 3. •There are sidewalks and rec paths and trails leading from all homes to Kimball Avenue. •As mentioned above, the development density at the south of the Project is significantly lower than the North. This is in line with the intensity shown in the Comp Plan at Map 11. It is also in line with the existing development pattern. •The outparcel is the farmhouse associated with the barn, and is not owned by the Applicant. The barn is being preserved here, along with a large open space contiguous to this parcel. Development around this existing home is at a 25% overall lot coverage. •There is an easement provided to Tilley Drive. There is a plan to offer 10 commercial lots in the exact format of the Tilley Drive subdivision, adjacent to that subdivision. The Project is a direct continuation of that style of development as proposed. •12 B would work very will with the Project. The IC street is of sufficient size to handle the traffic flow, an easement willbe granted to allow continuation through Tilley Drive where 12B would connect. •Potash brook will not be impacted, all required buffers will be preserved.
•Open space areas are not yet programmed.•Each area of open space provided in this plan will serve a purpose, and this space we believe is of sufficient size and quality to serve the purpose it will eventually be afforded. •This development is in an area that is zoned for high intensity. This particular open space falls adjacent to the red area on Map 11, and so open space should be considered for its quality in context, not just size. •In this case, shifting the road would remove three homes from the overall project, without an additional location to put them. This will reduce development potential below the reduction already taken from what is allowed under the regulations, and if required, should be carefully considered with the full picture of the programming in mind. •Applicant will provide a programming guide for the open spaces proposed at the next stage of development. •We believe the space as drawn can be well programmed.
•Phase I includes multiple 20’ wide roads with curb on both sides, and so this requirement is new to us. We will pass it on to the engineer and work with the fire department to ensure we design roads that will work for them. Hopefully this will not result in the unnecessary increase of impervious surfaces. •We will provide the feedback on hydrants to our engineer, there should be no issues.
•Applicant has not fully developed a plan for open spaces. This conversation, size, location road layout and adjacent development potential all influence that conversation. •Applicant considers that during Preliminary Plat will be a good time to have this conversation, once programming for the open spaces is understood, as that will relate to what the City might want or not want. •Will look into the bus stations.
•Applicant provided a discussion on waivers at its submission on 2/14/20. Specifically enumerating the following waivers willbe sought:1. Setback waivers, specifics provided at Exhibit 1.2. Height waivers in the C1‐LR.3. Road Standard waivers as needed.4. Permit durations waivers.•Specifics regarding most setback waivers can be seen on the neighborhood specific exhibit sheets provided. •In general, setbacks seek to reduce the front yards and pull buildings closer to the street. •In general, if a waiver can be issued now we will request it. •The investment in road networks being committed to in this application is incredibly significant, yet the only project being vested is 126 single family and townhome units. •The securing of waivers to build at the scale required to sustain the infrastructure committed to is integral to the process of planning for a large project. •Even in comments in this application it is clear the desire to have certainty in planning for large parcels. The only way toprovide certainty is with commitments by both parties. Otherwise the development would just be permitted in small piecemeal bites, which is not our understanding of the City’s goals.
•Project phasing will require a detailed understanding of cost and revenues. •Applicant is happy to provide this as part of Preliminary Plat and will plan on doing so. •A communal element phasing plan will also be provided. •We agree this is an important piece, and we want to provide a thoughtful and cohesive plan.
•The inclusionary requirement will apply to this project. 10% of all for sale units must be offered as affordable. Applicant proposes to do so. •Currently affordable units are expected to be located in the meadow loop area. •This central location has beautiful views to the west, and is in the core of the neighborhood. •The Applicant is proposing to design a 3‐bedroom affordable unit between 1200 and 1300 square feet. All units offered will be 3‐bedroom. It is presumed the majority of units sold in the site will be three bedroom, there will also be two bedroom and four bedroom. •At this stage, the Applicant believes planning for three bedroom units makes sense. •These units will be in an early phase of the development. The meadow is presumed to be one of the first phases at this time. •Affordable rental units will be provided when those projects are permitted in full as required by the regulations. No units are being created here and no permits for construction sought. When permits are issued, those will be discussed.