HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06A_SD-20-40_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_PP_memo
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD-20-40 500 Old Farm Road Preliminary Plat Application
DATE: March 16, 2021 Development Review Board meeting
O’Brien Eastview, LLC has submitted preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 to create a planned unit
development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling
102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on
nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (19) commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing
single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road.
The Board began review of the application on February 17, 2021 and continued the hearing to complete review
of the provided staff comments from that date and to allow the applicant to prepare responses. The applicant
has indicated they will assemble their responses once they have received all initial Board feedback. Staff has
prepared this memo to summarize the feedback provided on February 17 and provide limited updates. This
memo is followed in the packet by the original staff comments and supporting materials. No new materials
other than this memo are included.
In addition to the below summary, which includes two notes in red that Staff recommends the Board review
and address before continuing with the February 17 staff comments, Staff reminds the Board that they
indicated they would take supplemental testimony from committees if any committee wished to clarify or
modify their previously-provided comments in light of the applicants’ and Board’s discussion. Staff has
reserved time on April 20 to complete review of this application.
SC1 re: Phasing: The applicant testified that they would like to build the blocks in the order driven by the
market, but that they would be willing to provide a proposed phasing for amenity areas. Staff considers that in
addition to amenity areas, the phasing plan should propose logical segments for infrastructure, ie a whole road
segment as opposed to a dead end road.
SC2 re: Comprehensive Plan: This staff comment encouraged the Board to look at the application in the
context of the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and land use policies. Staff calls the Board’s particular
attention to the overall goal of being walkable, defined as bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe
transportation infrastructure. Staff also calls the Board’s attention to the northwest quadrant objective of
replacing small single-family affordable homes that have been bought and demolished under the airport’s
“Property Acquisition Plan,” and finally the northeast quadrant strategy of providing a balance of conservation
and business park opportunities to include the conservation of corridors along tributaries of Muddy and Potash
Brooks.
SC3, 4 and 5 re: Traffic Study: Staff has met with the applicant to review the Tilley Drive study, which
concludes in part that “the trips generated under the full build-out scenario can be accommodated with the
construction of several connector streets, moderate intersection upgrades, bicycle and pedestrian
#SD-20-37
2
infrastructure improvements, and transit enhancements.” The applicant has begun to modify their traffic
study to reflect the assumptions of the Tilley Drive study, and Staff has retained BFJ to perform a review of the
revised study. Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing to April 20 to allow this work to be
completed.
SC6 re: Limitations on findings in commercial areas: This comment noted that it would be premature to
approve anything but the right of way where no concept of development was proposed, as there is no way of
knowing where sidewalks, rec paths, parking, curb cuts and street trees should be. The applicant testified that
they would like to obtain full approval for the roadways in the commercial areas, and agreed to provide a
conceptual plan for the commercial lots in order to facilitate this. Staff recommends the Board also require
roadway cross sections of the commercial roadways if the applicant is seeking full approval.
SC7 re: Shared Use Path on Old Farm Road: The applicant testified that they were concerned with encroaching
upon homes at the south end of Old Farm Road. Staff notes there is ample space within the existing ROW for a
recreation path, and no impacts to private property would be required. Further, the Board and the applicant
seem to agree with Staff that Old Farm Road should act as the central feature of the proposed development.
The development will create at least 135 additional homes, and opportunity for outdoor recreation including
trails and fields which are likely to draw those from adjoining neighborhoods. Staff strongly recommends the
Board require the applicant to incorporate a rec path, or at minimum a sidewalk on the west side of Old Farm
Road paired with on-road bike lanes. The increased traffic on this road will decrease safety for the growing
number of pedestrians without such a feature. Finally, Staff recommends the Board invite testimony from the
Bike & Ped Committee on the applicant’s presentation regarding this request.
SC 8 re: parallel parking on Old Farm Road: The applicant deferred discussion of this comment until there was
consensus on the home layout, and it appears that consensus has been reached. Staff considers that if the
parking is designed in short segments of 3-4 spaces, with bump outs, it would not contribute to increased
speeds, a concern expressed by the applicant. Staff recommends the Board revisit the question of what
additional guest parking should be provided and direct the applicant to significantly increase on street parking
at this hearing.
SC 9 re: Old Farm Road cross sections: As noted above, Staff considers the Old Farm Road cross section should
include pedestrian and bicycle amenities along it’s entire length.
SC10 re: Transportation System: The applicant agreed to look at the transportation system holistically.
SC11 re: alley on Lot 31: The Board agreed with the configuration as presented.
SC12 re: vehicular connections to Hillside neighborhood: The Board felt that on balance, the disadvantages of
connecting the Eastview Development to Hillside at the south end of the project outweighed the advantages at
this time. There was no discussion of whether any comments pertaining to future connection should be
included in the decision. Staff considers that given the potential scale of the commercial development in the
I/C zoning district, the Board should clearly indicate that in the decision that connections may be required in
future phases of the PUD.
SC13 re: Connection to Tilley Drive PUD: The applicant indicated they intend to modify their plans to provide a
feasible connection. The layout of this connection will necessarily affect the Board’s review of the lot and
roadway layout in the I/C zone.
SC14 and 15 re: vehicular connection between R1 and I/C zone: The Board felt that on balance, the
disadvantages of providing a vehicular connection the I/C zone to the R1 zone outweigh the advantages at this
time. The Board did, however, consider that provisions should be made to allow future connection should the
build-out in the I/C zone evolve differently than envisioned. Therefore Staff recommends the proposed 50-ft
ROW be widened to 60-ft. If the construction of a roadway would indeed require a significant embankment as
#SD-20-37
3
the applicant testified, a 50-ft roadway does not accommodate the required side slopes. Such a change will
require a modest realignment of the homes on Legacy Farm Ave.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner