Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-20-40_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_PP 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: April 20, 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 reviewed the application on February 17 and March 16, 2021 and continued the hearing to complete review of the provided staff comments from those meetings and to allow the applicant to prepare responses. For this, the April 20, 2021 meeting, the applicant has prepared a number of updated or new exhibits for which they seek Board feedback before incorporating the modifications into their full submission. The applicant’s cover memo addresses each of the revised submissions. This memo provides the regulatory context for their review. Staff recommends the Board complete review of the original staff comments (beginning with comment #32 pertaining to waiver requests) before beginning review of the new materials. Staff has reserved time on the May 18, 2021 agenda to continue this hearing. The applicant has indicated they will be able to integrate Board feedback and provide a full set of materials for which they would like preliminary plat approval for that date. Original Not-Yet Discussed Staff Comments (prepared for 2/17/2021 Hearing) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS - 14.07 Specific Review Standards E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The applicant is requesting several waivers beginning on Page 51 of their application narrative. 32. Waiver Requests 18-20: the applicant requests that sketch plan and preliminary plat not be required for subsequent applications within the PUD, and that site plan review be allowed instead of final plat review for single buildings on single lots. This is a waiver Staff would consider as part of a master plan but has strong #SD-20-40 2 reservations about recommending with the current proposal, as no concept of the commercial lots has been provided and therefore no framework for under what circumstances such a request may be acceptable can be developed. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant has provided a general concept of the lots in the C1-LR and I/C areas. Staff still considers that this waiver request should not be granted. The newly-provided concept shows the lots as strongly interrelated, an approach Staff supports. Because the lots are interrelated, Staff considers stand-alone site plan review to be inappropriate. However, the Board has the authority to allow the applicant to skip sketch plan review for those lots as part of this overall final plat. Staff recommends the Board consider such a procedural waiver at the final plat stage of review. Such a waiver should be contingent upon the lots being developed in a manner generally consistent with the approved concept plan. 33. Waiver Request 21: “Applicant requests a finding that parking may be permitted with only site plan and conditional use review in the context of site plan review for a building on any approved lot in the PUD.” Staff doesn’t understand this request and recommends the Board ask the applicant to rephrase it to allow its review. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. Waiver Request 22: This waiver request pertains to bonding requirements. Staff recommends the applicant work with City Staff, including the director of public works, to develop a specific proposal for presentation to the Board at final plat. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to not provide adequate surety for the City, but some alternative proposal may be acceptable. Waiver Request 23: the applicant is requesting the Board extend the time the applicant has from the issuance of final plat to issuance of the first zoning permit from 6 months to two years. Staff considers this to be unnecessary as the applicant has the ability to request a one-year extension, therefore allowing 18-months between final plat and the first zoning permit. The applicant has made this request because of concerns about issuance of other required permits. Staff considers the issuance of other permits to be a consideration for all projects, without any issues specific to this project. Staff further considers this timeline to be in place to protect the City in the event of dramatic regulation changes between the time of final plat issuance and construction of the project. Waiver request 24: pertains to cul-de-sac, addressed above. 34. Waiver request 25: the applicant requests waiver of the requirement that construction in the IC zoning district be exempt from the requirements to have common elements with the remainder of the PUD. Staff recommends the Board deny this request. If the applicant wishes to consider the IC lands as a separate PUD, they should remove it from this application. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. The City Stormwater Section provided the following comments via email on February 5, 2021. The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Hillside at O’Brien Farm – Eastview” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 1/22/2021. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The applicant should ensure that there is adequate maintenance access to proposed infrastructure. #SD-20-40 3 2. Will the rec path adjacent to Gravel Wetland #4 have reinforcement that will allow access by maintenance equipment, such as a vactor truck and other machinery? 3. Ensure there is adequate maintenance access to any sewer lines, sewer manholes, storm lines and storm drains located outside of the road right-of-way. This includes providing 10’ wide setback on either side of any pipe that runs between buildings (such as Unit 31-21 & Unit 31-22) or adjacent to buildings (such as Unit 31-25), resulting in a 20’ wide maintenance access. 4. For the Kimball Ave expansion, new shared use path and new sidewalk, where will the stormwater from these impervious areas be treated? 5. For the new storm line running parallel to the Kimball Ave Road widening area, is there a reason this was not located in the roadway? 6. Any footing drains that connect into the stormdrain system should be installed with a backflow preventer. 7. Gravel Wetland #3 is currently designed to drain back into the stormwater drainage system on O’Brien Farm Road. Has the collection system been analyzed during various storm events to ensure it is adequately sized to handle the inflow from this system? Where do flows from the 100-yr storm event discharge to? No emergency spillway is shown. 8. On Gravel Wetland #4, can the outlet pipe be extended under the rec path, so that discharge from the system is not flowing over the path? 9. Provide all required elements from §12.03 of City’s LDRs, including a narrative, drainage area maps, and HydroCAD models for review in a future application. 10. Comments on the Gravel Wetland Detail on Sheets D-8 & D-9 will be discussed directly with engineer as final design plans are developed. 11. Site specific EPSC sheets will need to be developed for this project. Staff considers comments #3 and #4 may have an impact on the project design. Staff considers the applicant should address these comments without additional waivers beyond those already sought. In other words, if a 10-foot drainage easement is required, setbacks should not be further reduced to accommodate it. The Natural Resources and Conservation Committee offers the following comment specific to low impact development. Minimize production of impervious surfaces. Use light colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to minimize warming of runoff waters. Consider minimizing impervious surfaces on the project site and use rain barrels, rain gardens and swales where practical to slow runoff. Utilize light-colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to decrease the warming of runoff, which can degrade downstream waters and Lake Champlain. The applicant has provided a written response to this comment, focusing on the minimization of impervious surfaces. Stormwater management is proposed to occur in gravel wetlands, which have a limited amount of surface storage and therefore a lower impact on the warming of runoff than surface ponds. 35. Nonetheless, Staff recommends the Board consider whether to include a condition requiring the use of light- colored roofs. Staff considers the Board may wish to request either the Board or the NRCC provide a specific metric. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. #SD-20-40 4 G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. See above under transportation F) SUBDIVSION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS These criteria apply to both the portion of the project proposed for development at this time and the commercial lots proposed for subdivision but not development. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has provided an estimate of preliminary water and wastewater flows for the currently proposed homes. Staff agrees that no allocation for the commercial lots is necessary at this time. The South Burlington Water Department provided the following comments on 1/29/2021. Good Afternoon Here are the SBWD Technical Plan Review comments for SD 20-40 500 Old Farm Road O’Brien Eastview. I have discussed my two larger concerns (looping) with the engineer who agrees with my assessment and will forward that information on to the developer. The remaining points are general. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Jay Nadeau 1. Sheet C-3: General note: Service taps must not be any closer than 36” from a hydrant tee or fitting. 2. Sheet C-3: General note: No service lines or curb stops may be placed under driveways or in sidewalks (curb boxes). 3. Sheet C-3: Continue 12” DI water main to connect to south entrance at Meadow Loop and Old Farm Road (looping requirement). 4. Sheet C-4: Add third valve at tee in front of building 16-15. 5. Sheet C-6: Extend water main from end of cul-de-sac to Legacy Farm Road (looping requirement). 6. Sheet C-14: Tie in line between cul-de-sac and Legacy Farm Road. 7. Sheet C-15: Show where water main size changes from 12” to 8” on plans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate these comments into the final plat application. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. #SD-20-40 5 As noted above by the City Stormwater Section, compliance with this criterion will be reviewed at final plat. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. See above under Transportation for the lots proposed for development. C1-LR lots west of Old Farm Road (lots 17, 21, 22 and 23) Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring these lots be accessed via Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road and not via Kimball Ave or Kennedy Drive. 36. The proposed configuration results in lots which have two fronts. Parking is required to be to the side or rear of buildings. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a concept of how an adequate amount of parking can be provided on these lots while meeting the required location standards prior to approval of these lots. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant has provided a concept for the C1-LR lots showing parking and access consistent with this comment. Staff recommends the Board defer discussion of the C1-LR area to the next meeting. The C1-LR area represents a significant development area which for any other application would be given the attention of the Board over the course of multiple meetings, therefore Staff considers a single meeting to focus on this area to be appropriate. C1-LR lots east of Old Farm Road (Lots 25 – 29) Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring these lots be accessed via Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road East. Staff further recommends the Board include a condition requiring these lots be designed to have an attractive and active street presence facing the residential area to the south, as alluded to above. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: As noted above, Staff recommends the Board defer discussion of the C1-LR area to the next meeting. I/C lots (Lots 38 – 46) Unless an alternative conceptual design is presented, Staff recommends the Board require that Lots 38 and 39 share a driveway and lots 40 through 43 share a driveway. Lot 38 has around 260 feet of frontage on I/C road. A driveway in the center would result in a driveway around 130 feet from the intersection, which is not desirable. As discussed above, the configuration of I/C Road must be revised to allow connection to the Tilley Drive PUD, therefore Staff considers no detailed findings on this criterion are appropriate for these lots. (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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. It appears as though wetland impacts are limited to the I/C road, though no wetland buffers are shown on individual site plans therefore it is not possible to ascertain the extent of temporary buffer impacts due to grading. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their site plans to show wetland and buffers on all sheets where present. Comments of the Natural Resources Conservation Committee are embedded in this document. #SD-20-40 6 37. Pertaining to the I/C road, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider an alignment which minimizes wetland impacts while still providing the required connection to the Tilley Drive PUD. It appears this would result in the road moving further west. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: Staff considers this comment to have been addressed. (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. This criterion is addressed under 14.06B(2) above for the lots proposed for development. 38. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a framework for assurances of continuity of architecture and scale within the C1-LR lots and also within the I/C lots. This would be to prevent circumstances where individual site plans propose dramatically different types of development from adjoining lots, a circumstance which has been an issue in other industrial commercial districts. Should the applicant consider such a framework premature, Staff notes there is no requirement that these lots be part of this PUD. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant has provided a framework for the C1-LR lots based on the T4 building envelope standards (BES). The T4 zoning district is within the Form Based Code area, designed to be the most densely developed area of the City. As noted above, Staff recommends the Board defer discussion of the C1-LR area to the next meeting. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington. Discussed above. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions. This criterion will be reviewed at final plat. (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 properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. See above under Transportation. (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. 39. For the C1-LR and I/C Lots, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose triggers for construction of roads, including a scheme with which they will reserve funds with each lot to fund construction of off-site improvements. Staff considers roadway construction should not be done on a lot by lot basis but should rather be done one whole roadway at a time. #SD-20-40 7 Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant has provided a phasing plan, indicating that the roadways in the C1-LR area will be constructed “as required by Permitting and Construction.” Staff will address C1-LR phasing at a continued hearing. See additional discussion of phasing below under re-analysis of prior staff comment #1. Regarding off-site improvements, no discussion of how funding for these improvements would be planned for has been provided, therefore Staff considers this portion of the comment to stand as written. Preliminary comments of the Director of Public Works were received on 2/2/2021. Many of these comments are incorporated herein. Other specific comments are as follows. 1. One of the supplements showed a ‘special paving’ at the base of Old Farm at Kimball. Please provide details. 2. The applicant should provide a pavement marking and signage plan. That’s where most of our comments usually end up. 3. Street light plans should be provided at the next stage of review. Staff recommends the Board undertake a detailed review of compliance with this criterion at Final Plat. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). See above under Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. See discussion of similar criterion under 14.07F above. G) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Staff recommends the Board only consider setback and height standards for the lots currently proposed for development. Lot size should be reviewed for all proposed lots. Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout. • Density • Setbacks • Heights • Lot Size Staff has not provided a detailed review of these elements as Staff considers that if the project meets the objectives and considerations discussed elsewhere in this document, these more specific criterion will be met. Where minor modification of specific dimensional standards is needed to provide the well thought out and activated neighborhood design discussed herein, Staff recommends the Board grant the necessary waivers to do so. H) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS B. Inclusionary Units #SD-20-40 8 (1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition: (a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). The applicant is proposing to construct 135 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the applicant must provide 13.5, rounded to 14, inclusionary units. The affordable housing committee provided comments prior to the applicant submitting some modifications to the proposed plan. Below is the motion from the 12/15/20 Affordable Housing Committee meeting that the committee approved. Mike moved and John seconded motion that committee commend the O’Brien Brothers for their approach to incorporating inclusionary units in its permit application for the Eastview component of its Hillside Master Plan and applaud the fact that homeownership constitutes the entirety of the Eastview component; while simultaneously encouraging them to give serious consideration to Planning and Zoning staff’s input regarding additional variety in block layouts and housing types, and broader distribution of the inclusionary units. 40. Staff recommends the Board ask the Affordable Housing Committee whether they have any additional feedback after the above comments pertaining to transitions are addressed. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. (2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. The units are proposed to be constructed on site. (b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. (i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single building or multiple buildings. 41. The units are proposed to be the middle unit in the three-family buildings. There are only eight three-family buildings proposed at this time, where 14 units are required. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will provide the remaining inclusionary units. Staff recommends the Board require the remaining inclusionary units be provided in different home types to satisfy this criterion. #SD-20-40 9 Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant indicated in their cover letter for this hearing date that given the currently proposed number of homes, their required number of inclusionary units has increased to 15. LDR 18.01E(1)(c) allows credit for three inclusionary units for every two three- bedroom inclusionary units constructed. The applicant has indicated that the eight middle units will each have three bedrooms, thus accounting for 12 of the required units. This means three additional inclusionary units are required. The applicant has proposed to make two of units 16-15 to 16-20 (the “cottage” units on the north end of Meadow Loop) inclusionary. This means at least one additional unit is required. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the proposed distribution meets this criterion and discuss the location of the 15th required unit. (ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details quality of those of the market rate units in the development. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. As long as no architecture specific to inclusionary units is developed, Staff considers this criterion will be met. (iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; 42. O’Brien Brothers has touted energy efficiency as in important element of this development in the past, though based on Staff recollection, some of the energy efficiencies may have an additional up-front cost to home buyers. Staff recommends the Board as the applicant how they propose to meet this criterion if there is an additional up-front cost of energy efficiency measures. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant indicated in their cover letter for this hearing date that energy efficient measures will be included as standard. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what is standard and what efficiency measures are to be provided at an additional const. (iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units. The applicant is aware of this criterion. Staff recommends the Board defer demonstration of compliance with this criterion to the final plat stage of review. (v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style. Staff considers this criterion as restricting inclusionary units to buildings with no more than four units and with the appearance of single family homes. Staff considers this criterion met. (vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units. At this time, with the proposed units, Staff considers this criterion met. Staff considers this criterion #SD-20-40 10 should be reevaluated when the required number of units are provided. (vi) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit. The applicant has stated that they do not believe compliance with this criterion will be an issue because the preponderance of homes selected in Hillside have been two-bedroom. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration of compliance with this criterion at final plat. If the number of bedrooms in the available home types differs thus preventing precise documentation that this criterion will be met, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to develop a worst-case scenario estimate for review at final plat. (vii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as 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. 43. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether they intend to provide unfinished space within inclusionary units. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units. As noted above, the order of the phasing has not been specified; the applicant has only indicated which pieces of the development are proposed to be built as a phase. 44. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that 25% of the inclusionary units be constructed and made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on for each additional 25% construction, or similar scheme with a different percentage. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: The applicant has indicated they intend to construct the Meadow Loop phase first. Though this will likely result in the inclusionary units being constructed towards the beginning of the project, Staff still considers this recommended condition to be applicable. Otherwise the applicant could start a second phase before completing the inclusionary units in Meadow Loop. Staff considers this or similar condition need not come into play unless things evolve in a different manner than the applicant is anticipating. D. Affordability Requirements The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary units under this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and purchase prices is updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Vermont specific data is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by income and household size”. Refer to this table in administration of this section. #SD-20-40 11 This section pertains to monthly housing, which may not exceed one twelfth of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit as measured in number of bedrooms. It also requires utility costs to be included. Income eligibility must be determined based on Annual Median Income of no more than 100% Area Median Income targets as measured by HUD. Administration of continued compliance with these criteria is delegated to the City Manager or their designees. Staff considers that the Board should require the applicant to provide the required deed restrictions for continued affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit. I) 13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS The applicant is proposing a “gravel extraction area” on Lot 38. This is currently the steepest portion of the Industrial/Commercial zone and is presently wooded. This area abuts a large area of Class II wetland. Without any plans for development, the applicant is proposing significant regrading of this area, including blasting to remove ledge. The applicant has provided extensive equivocation of why they believe this ledge blasting is advantageous beginning on Page 40 of their narrative, including that the blasting “will facilitate a much more level and aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create a buildable site shielded from view of Old Farm Road.” Since no commercial development is proposed at this time, Staff considers the Board should review this proposed ledge removal through blasting through a very critical lens. This ledge removal falls under 13.16 pertaining to resource extraction, as well as the specific noise and vibration standards of LDR Appendix A, as well as separate Public Nuisance Ordinances. The comments of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee on the area of ledge removal are included as Item #1 in their letter, and conclude this area contains “important brushy habitat” but “its value as resident wildlife habitat suffers from lack of species diversity.” They go on to indicate “the tree island borders the central wetland and provides vegetated buffer zones important for protecting the wildlife corridor provided by the wetland drainage brook.” Staff encourages the Board to read the full comment of the NRCC. In summary, however, this area has value but is not realizing it’s full potential as wildlife habitat at this time. 45. Since this area is not presently proposed for development, and there are other sources of fill in Vermont, including quarries in Williston and in South Burlington, Staff has serious reservations about the Board directing the applicant to further pursue this proposal. However, if the Board chooses to allow the applicant to proceed, Staff considers detailed ledge removal information should be provided, including mapping of extents, methodology of removal, and mitigation measures to minimize impact and demonstration of how the below resource extraction, performance standards, and standards of the City’s public nuisance ordinance will be met. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: In their cover letter for this 4/20 hearing, the applicant indicate they do not believe 13.16 applies because the “gravel extraction” area is part of the larger PUD. Staff is not swayed by this argument and recommends the Board apply LDR 13.16 as written below. Staff considers if the applicant proceeds in the responsible manner they are representing, compliance with these standards will not be an unnecessary burden. 13.16 Earth Products A. General Requirements. The conduct of a resource extraction operation that involves the removal of loam, gravel, stone, fill, topsoil, sod or similar substance, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a building on the same lot, shall be permitted in any district, except as limited by the Surface Water Protection Standards and Interstate Highway Overlay District, subject to site plan approval by the Development Review Board after public notice. Staff considers these standards apply. #SD-20-40 12 B. Site Plan Requirements. An application for the removal of more than twenty (20) cubic yards within one (1) calendar year period shall include the submittal of a site plan showing the area from which earth products are to be removed. Also, the application shall include specific information pertaining to the following factors and such other information as the Development Review Board may require. At minimum, the following information shall be required: (1) Depth of excavation, in proximity to roads or adjacent properties. (2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material. (3) Effect upon public health and safety. (4) Creation of a nuisance. (5) Effect upon the use of adjacent properties by reason of noise, dust or vibration. (6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical damage on public ways. (7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover. 46. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit this information prior to approval of any application which involves work on the parcels in question. Staff considers if the applicant is not ready to provide this information now, they may exclude this area from the application. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. C. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting its approval, may impose conditions on the following: (1) Duration of the permit for any length of time that the Development Review Board deems appropriate. (2) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed. (4) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. Staff considers any review of the proposed ledge removal should include findings on these criteria. Appendix A Performance Standards A.2(a) No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernable without the aid of instrument at or beyond the lot lines, nor shall any vibration produced exceed 0.002g peak at up to 60 cps frequency, measured at or beyond the lot lines using either seismic or electronic vibration measuring equipment. Staff considers the proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: Staff considers this standard was written for long term operations. Staff recommends the Board include conditions limiting the duration for which the numeric standards in this criterion may be exceeded. A.3 Noise #SD-20-40 13 (a) The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises and shall be deemed detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of the City of South Burlington. (vi) Noise in general. Any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume, frequency or beat and is not muffled or otherwise controlled. (b)(i) The creation of, permitting or operation of any of the above sets, instruments, devices or vehicles causing said noise in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet (50’) from the building, structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of a nuisance and a violation of these Regulations. (c)(iii) Temporary actions benefiting the public, including but not limited to roadway construction, sewer and water line construction, and special public events, are specifically exempt from the provisions of these Regulations upon approval of such an exemption by the City Manager. Staff considers the proposed blasting will violate this section of the LDR, and is not likely exempt as a temporary action benefiting the public. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: Staff considers this standard was written for long term operations. Staff recommends the Board include conditions limiting the duration for which the numeric standards in this criterion may be exceeded. J) OTHER The Energy Committee provided the comments on 1/5/2021. While there may not be specific criterion in the LDR requiring energy efficiency, Staff considers the comprehensive plan goal related to “clean and green,” woven throughout the Comprehensive Plan, supports these comments. Staff notes that it is within the Board’s authority to impose certain conditions related to energy efficiency on the project if there is sufficient nexus to do so. • Comprehensive Plan Goal: Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South Burlington Excerpts from Comments of the Energy Committee (full comments included in the packet): The City of South Burlington has committed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of all of South Burlington by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The City is not on track to meet that goal and it is very difficult to see how the City would meet this goal if new homes in the City continue to be built with fossil fuel infrastructure. It is critically important for the City, the State and the larger global community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. • The SBEC’s first and very strong recommendation is that all the homes to be built be fully electric (and not built with any fossil fuel infrastructure). Since the electric grid in South Burlington is already very “clean” (94%+ carbon-free), and is targeted to be 100% carbon fee by 2025, such homes will generate no (or few) greenhouse gas emissions. • We also recommend that all new homes be built with 240v lines into each garage to facilitate electric vehicle charging, or better yet that level 2 chargers are pre-installed. • The residential stretch code already requires that new residential homes be built “solar ready”. We would further recommend that attention be paid to the orientation and roof lines of each home to maximize solar potential. #SD-20-40 14 • Consideration should also be given to constructing a community solar array. • Finally, the SBEC would appreciate if the applicant would provide a submission that demonstrates how each of the homes will comply with the residential stretch code, particularly the elements set forth in Table 5.6 of the 2020 Vermont Residential Energy Code Handbook (attached). 47. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the final comment of the Energy Committee, and further consider whether they will incorporate any other recommendations of the Committee as requirements of the project. Staff update for 4/20 hearing: No update, this comment still applies as written. K) ANALYSIS OF REVISED MATERIALS IN ORIGINAL REGULATORY CONTEXT Staff comments for which no further discussion is needed at this time have been omitted from the below notes. Staff directs the Board and the applicant to the comments and minutes from 2/17/2021 and 3/16/2021 for direction on the omitted comments. SC1 re: Phasing: The applicant has provided a phasing plan. Staff considers three significant modifications to the phasing plan are required. Staff recommends the Board require that the connection to Hillside (proposed Phase 11), the modifications to the north end of Old Farm Road (proposed Phase 9) and the improvements to the existing segment of Old Farm Road through the project (Proposed Phase 8) begin no later than concurrently with construction of the first homes, and be completed no later than completion of the 46th unit (representing all homes on Meadow Loop, or a different combination if the applicant begins multiple blocks at once). Though the traffic study concludes these improvements are not warranted until later in the project, Staff considers them to be integral parts of the proposed project and therefore they should be completed prior to significant occupancy. SC3, 4 and 5 re: Traffic Study: 15.18A(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. 15.12F(1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout. The applicant has provided an updated traffic study which concludes, in brief, that more modest traffic improvements are needed than were originally recommended. The technical review of this traffic study is underway. If results of that review are available at the time of the hearing, Staff will share them with the Board. SC6 re: Limitations on findings in commercial areas: Staff comments #6 through #20 fall under the general heading of 14.06B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site, though additional criteria of 14.06, 13.01, 15.10 and 15.12 also apply. 14.06B(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 #SD-20-40 15 parking 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 has a conceptual plan for the commercial lots in order to facilitate this. Relocation of the I/C roadway is discussed as part of Staff comment #13 below. Staff considers the conceptual layout in the I/C area to be generally consistent with the LDR, with two minor modifications. First, the driveways for lots 40 and 41 should be shared. Second, since most development is on the east side of the road, Staff considers the rec path should be on that side, with a condition that no more than three driveway crossings be constructed. Staff considers a sidewalk is only necessary on the west side from the north end of the road to the terminus of Lot 38, after which a crossing should be provided to the rec path on the west. Staff recommends the Board determine whether they agree with these recommendations. Discussion of the conceptual layout in the C1-LR area will be provided at a later hearing in the context of staff comments #36 and #38 above. At the previous hearing, the Board indicated they would require roadway cross sections of the commercial roadways if the applicant is seeking full approval. Staff considers these should be provided prior to closing the hearing. SC7 re: Shared Use Path on Old Farm Road: At the previous hearing, the applicant testified that they want to provide a shared use path along the entire length of Old Farm Road due to potential visual impacts to existing homes. The Board discussed that the nature of the roadway is proposed to be modified, and it was important that accommodations for all users be provided. The applicant has proposed “Advisory Bicycle Lanes” along the south end of Old Farm Road. Staff has reviewed this proposal with the Director of Public Works, and we strongly disagree with this approach. Old Farm Road is not an appropriate location for such a treatment. Hinesburg Road, State Route 116, is a high to medium speed roadway. Turning from such a roadway onto a road with shared bicycle and vehicular lanes creates a potential safety concern. Staff continues to support a shared use path along the entire length, which will provide a benefit to the community when the neighborhood is built out. Staff considers encroachment of private landscaping into the public right of way to be inadequate justification for changing how the public way is used. Staff is open to a phased approach or creative solutions to construction of this section of the recreation path and recommends the Board to direct the applicant to work with Staff prior to final plat. The Bike & Pedestrian committee reviewed the provided “Bike and Recreation Connectivity” exhibit, showing the proposed advisory lane and other connections, at their April 14 meeting. Staff recommends the Board ask the Bike & Pedestrian committee for their feedback. SC 8 re: parallel parking on Old Farm Road: The applicant has provided a plan showing a proposal for additional parking along Old Farm Road. Staff supports the revised plan, though they do question why the submission is referred to as a “Parallel Parking Study.” Staff recommends the Board confirm that what is shown is actually what is proposed. SC 9 re: Old Farm Road cross sections: Staff understands that the applicant is planning to provide cross sections at the continued hearing. SC13 re: Roadway Connection to Tilley Drive PUD and recreational loop: The applicant has modified their plans to provide a feasible connection to the Tilley Drive PUD. They have also reached an agreement with the #SD-20-40 16 Tilly Drive PUD that they would construct a pedestrian path along the future roadway alignment in the Tilley Drive PUD until such time as the Tilley Drive PUD connects the roadway. Staff is generally supportive of the revised configuration, but considers that the previously proposed recreation path is less functional as currently designed. A comparison of the previous (left) proposal and current (right) proposal is below. The previous proposal provided a large looping off-road trail network. Taking into consideration Staff’s previous comment regarding locating the recreation path on the east side of the road, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will ask the applicant to look into continuing the trail as previously proposed. Staff considers such a trail would demarcate the back yards of the homes along the open space and prevent them from being turned into lawn. SC14 and 15 re: vehicular connection between R1 and I/C zone: The applicant previously provided a 50-ft easement centered on the proposed recreation path, which they are no longer showing. Given the reconfigured I/C road and the proposed ROW easement off the south end of Legacy Farm Extension, Staff considers the likelihood of a future connection to be even more viable, therefore as suggested before, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to retain a 60-ft ROW for future connection between Legacy Farm Ave and the I/C road. If the construction of a roadway would indeed require a significant embankment as 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. SC 17 re: Legacy Farm Extension: The applicant is now proposing to connect Legacy Farm Ave Extension to Old Farm Road. Staff is supportive of this configuration, and supports the proposed ROW to the south as well. Staff continues to recommend the pavement width be a minimum of 20-ft in this location as a through street. SC 18 and 19 re: O’Brien Farm Road Extension: As noted above, the applicant has proposed a framework for development of these lots. Staff considers the framework needs more detailed review, but a similar framework, once approved, will support an accompanying roadway cross section. In other words, Staff considers these comments to need further review at a future date. SC 20 re: Resident Club: The applicant has made modifications to this area. Staff considers it to be an attractive feature. Staff notes that it does not appear the homes on Lot 32 have a relationship to the path along the outside of the club area. As previously noted, Staff recommends the Board discourage a heavy buffer in this area, and instead encourage the homes on Lot 33 to use Lot 32 as their neighborhood play area. SC 27 re: Parking at Resident Club 14.06B(2)(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 or of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve #SD-20-40 17 only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss their revised proposal as it pertains to this exception. If there is no portion of the Resident Club which is principally for public recreation, the proposed parking may not be approved. SC 28 re: Height Compatibility 14.06B(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. This criterion is discussed above under Staff Comment #38. SC 29 re: Business Park North Lot 4 14.07A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be 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. There is an existing dedicated pedestrian easement across the northern side of Business Park Lot 4. This easement is a “placeholder” for a future trail network. At this time, some parcels have formalized pedestrian access through this area. At the previous hearing, the Applicant asked where the future trail network is supposed to go. The purpose of the easement on this and adjoining lots is to, over time, create a walking path along the south side of Potash Brook. SC 30 & 31 re: Waivers for Commercial Lots The applicant proposed a framework for the commercial lots, discussed above. Staff considers this framework, and associated waivers, will be reviewed in more detail at a future date. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner Exhibit Table of Contents Exhibit Name Exhibit Description Last Revision/Submission Date Exhibit Active/Inactive Obsolete Exhibit 001 Original Cover Letter, Table of Contents, Exhibit Table of Contents and Project Narrative. Original Exhibits provided. Saved as one complete file. This narrative remains our main project discussion. N.A. Active Exhibit 002 Complete Civil Engineering Plan Set. Includes Details and Road Profiles. Includes Watershed Map and Tree Protection Plan. Includes Existing Conditions. 1/22/21 Active Exhibit 003 City Preliminary Plat Application, Fully Executed 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 004 City Master Plan Application, Fully Executed 10/08/20 Inactive Exhibit 005 Eastview Coverage and Zoning Area Chart 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 006 Eastview Project Master Plan 10/08/20 Inactive Exhibit 007 Eastview Lot Number, Lot Area, Setback Table 1/22/21 Inactive Exhibit 008 Eastview Aerial Rendering of Development Proposal 1/22/21 Active Exhibit 009 Eastview Old Farm Road Proposed Gateway Traffic Control Analysis Letter 10/08/20 Inactive Exhibit 010 Eastview Lands Archeological Report and Review for Sensitive sites for IC Lands 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 011 Archeological Report for R1 and C1-LR Lands 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 012 Park Play Equipment Rendering for Park in C1-LR area, adjacent to Kimball 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 013 Resident Club Architectural Plans and Rendering 10/08/20 Inactive Exhibit 014 Traffic Report for Eastview PUD w/appendices 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 015 Kimball Avenue Potential Improvement Plans 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 016 Old Farm Road Potential Improvement Plan 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 017 Landscape Concept Sketches for Eastview Neighborhood 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 018 Preliminary WW Allocation Request 01/22/21 Active Exhibit 019 Stormwater Calculations for Eastview PUD 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 020 Water Allocation Request for Eastview PUD 01/22/21 Active Exhibit 021 Environmental Impacts Analysis Letter for Eastview PUD Area 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 022 Matrix showing unit types available on each footprint lot of the planned residential development area. 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 023 Architectural Elevations and Floor Plans for Units Proposed in Residential Area 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 024 Photos of existing barn on Old Farm Road 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 025 Abutters List for Eastview PUD 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 026 Outline of Preliminary Plat Submission Requirements Annotated with Where in Our Original Application Items are Located. 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 027 Email from Marla Keene Dated 09 11 20 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 028 Supplemental Cover Letter and Exhibits Submitted 10 05 20 10/08/20 Active Exhibit 029 Supplemental Submission and Cover Letter to DRB Dated 12/21/20, with All Exhibits 12/21/20 Active Exhibit 030 Letter from Errol Briggs re Class III Wetlands 12/21/20 Active Exhibit 031 Eastview Open Space Plan 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 032 VHB Connection Overview Plan and Old Farm Traffic Calming 01/27/21 Active Updated to be VHB Plan Exhibit 033 Rendering of Uphill Townhomes Proposed on O’Brien Farm Road Extension 12/21/20 Active Exhibit 034 Proposed Unit Types and Unit Counts, PUD Overall Density Calculations 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 035 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum 001 03/15/21 3/15/21 Inactive Exhibit 036 Overall Project Plan Concept Sketch: Showing Changes responsive to hearing feedback 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 037 IC Area Subdivision Concept Plan and Conceptual Site Layout 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 038 C1 LR Subdivision Concept Layout 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 039 C1 LR Concept Waiver Framework and Corresponding Plan 04/06/21 Active Exhibit 040 Phasing Plan with Numerical Sequencing and Triggers Chart 04/06/21 Active VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 6, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: O’Brien Farm Planned Unit Development of Remaining Lands; O’Brien Eastview Dear Board Members: As you know, O’Brien Eastview, LLC filed Preliminary Plat for the Eastview project in August 2020. After working with City staff and providing additional supplemental materials, the application was deemed complete in an email dated October 26, 2020 from Marla Keene. The Project remains as defined in previous submissions to the Board. As discussions with City staff and committees continue, our Project has, and will continue to evolve. Attached to this letter is an updated Exhibit Table of Contents. This includes the date of submission or the last update to the submission for each item listed. It also includes a column which indicates if an exhibit is still “active.” As you will see, some exhibits have become irrelevant or inactive due to plan changes that have negated them. While those exhibits remain listed to preserve the record of the hearing, they are no longer pertinent to the project planned. Items noted with the date of this letter are updated in this letter and are provided again today. There are a number of changes presented in this update, in response to issues discussed at the hearings in February and March. In addition to minor updates to density and coverage tables, and other ancillary small items, significant responsive changes presented for Board feedback are as follows: 1. Old Farm Road Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations and Traffic Calming, Proposed Parallel Parking. 2. Reconfiguration of the Mixed IC Subdivision and Roadway, Sample Layout for IC Lots. Proposed Official Map Connection and Future Connectivity to Old Farm Road. 3. Barn Lot Redevelopment Concept: Event Space and Publicly Accessible Park. 4. Additional Roadway Connection and New Housing from Legacy Farm Spur Road (Mountainview Drive). 5. Commercial 1 Limited Retail Sample Lot Layout and Proposed Regulatory Framework for Height. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Intersection Improvements. 7. Project Phasing Framework and Updated Phasing Plan. 8. Project Open Space. 2 In addition to the changes presented in response to feedback, the Applicant also wishes to provide supplemental testimony related to staff comments and conversations during the hearings held thus far. These specific items are as follows: 9. Connections to Existing Hillside Neighborhood. 10. Applicant Waiver Requests. 11. Stormwater Comments and Concerns. 12. Proposed Class III Wetland Impacts. 13. Location, Type, Phasing and Energy Efficiency of Inclusionary Homes Proposed. 14. Project Construction, Ledge Removal and On-site Stone Processing. The following letter addresses each numbered item in order. We greatly appreciate the time and effort spent so far on this application and are looking forward to completing this preliminary plat review. 1. Old Farm Road Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations and Traffic Calming, Proposed Parallel Parking. The bike and pedestrian committee and City staff both provided feedback regarding the proposed bike accommodations along Old Farm Road. In response to the issues raised and further to the request of the Board, the Applicant hired a professional consultant with experience in bike and pedestrian focused design to review the Project and to propose how the Project could facilitate a safe bike connection as well as a safe pedestrian connection to Tilley Drive (and specifically the new Tilley Drive market) without negatively impacting existing homes on Old Farm Road. Attached as Exhibit 032 please find an updated overview of proposed bike connections in the Project. In specific response to issues raised, the Applicant is proposing an advisory lane configuration at the south end of Old Farm Road, and a recreation path on the west side of Old Farm Road (once past existing residences). To create a pedestrian connection to the Tilley Market, the Board will note that Applicant has worked with its neighbor at Tilley Drive (Pizzagalli Properties), to secure the ability to construct a pedestrian connection from Legacy Farm Road, to the rec path within the Tilley Drive business park. This connection will be built by the applicant and will be maintained by the Eastview Homeowners Association, until such time as the Tilley Drive connector is built, and the path becomes part of that City Map roadway/approved Roadway of the Tilley Drive project. Lastly, the Board will see an updated Old Farm Road parallel parking sketch at Exhibit 016. We would welcome board feedback on these concepts and would look to refine them and make a definitive proposal with detailed drawings at final plat. We are excited about this plan and the ability to preserve the character of the existing developed portions of Old Farm Road, while also facilitating safe bike connectivity and neighborhood connectivity. We hope that the Board appreciates the proposed compromise which seeks to balance the interests of our neighbors on Old Farm Road who have lived in this area for decades and whose homes, parking, privacy and neighborhood would be greatly impacted by a rec path on the west of Old Farm Road, with the interest of the City in terms of recreational connections for its residents. We appreciate the creativity of this concept brought by our consultants, which we understand has been used on Flynn Avenue in Burlington and we look forward to the board’s review. 3 2. Reconfiguration of the Mixed IC Subdivision and Roadway, Sample Layout for IC Lots. Proposed Official Map Connection and Future Connectivity to Old Farm Road Applicant is also pleased to present to the Board the proposed reconfiguration of the Mixed IC zoning district lots and roadway connection. In response to staff feedback and board concerns, Applicant focused its attention on resolving some major issues with the proposed IC area subdivision and roadway. Attached as Exhibit 036, the Board can see an updated Overall Project Plan. This plan has resolved the ability to connect the road with the neighboring development at Tilley Drive. The original configuration did not allow for a roadway connection that would still enable development on the adjacent parcel. Significant wetland constraints limit the buildable area of that lot, and so the connection point with our Project was very narrow. This new road orientation connects with the adjacent parcel in the area of the planned City Map roadway, slightly adjusted to avoid wetland impacts, while simultaneously enabling the full development potential of the neighboring parcel. In studying this new configuration, we have also found an opportunity to remedy the east-to- west connectivity issue that the Board and Staff have raised in comments. As shown on Exhibit 032 there is now an opportunity to connect the Legacy Farm Extension roadway with the future Tilley Drive extension. The Applicant has provided a right of way to the property line to enable this future use. Finally, in reviewing the potential development of these lots, Applicant was very pleased with the ability (in this new configuration) to enhance the street presence of the IC development along the City road, and to hide parking in the center of the developed area, providing screening for homes proposed and travelers on the City roadway. Attached as Exhibit 37 per the request of the Board is a conceptual two-dimensional layout of what a development of these lots might look like. As the Board will see, we have created a framework where the parking is largely hidden from the public view and where the buildings can be constructed with a street presence oriented toward both Kimball Avenue and the new IC Roadway. Additionally, with the roadway framing the open space and green corridor, we provide a distinct transition and buffer between the residential and industrial areas of the project. We also have hidden parking from the view of homes built in the R1 lands, by putting the buildings between the homes and the parking areas. Overall, the Applicant feels this plan change is a great improvement that addresses the viability of the City Map’s roadway connection, the street presence of the proposed development lots, and the east-west connectivity that has been sought after but was not viable given grade change in the original layout. We very much look forward to the Board’s feedback on this new design. 3. Barn Lot Redevelopment Concept: Event Space and Publicly Accessible Park. The applicant has given considerable thought to the best way to use the barn area in this project and what would benefit both residents of the Project as well as the broader community. While the concept of a resident club and pool facility was a nice benefit to the homeowners, the result was to limit the ability of the broader public to fully enjoy a beautiful vista within the City. Given the desire of the Applicant to ensure this is a community focused development, and feedback presented regarding access and design of the site, reconsideration has been given to the proposed use of this area. 4 The Applicant has removed the resident club and pool facility from the project plans and reimagined the concept for this area as a park with a privately owned event space (or other future compliant use), to be located in the two-story portion of the original barn. A potential event space in this location could be available to all residents of the City and broader community for rent on special occasions and would be located adjacent to a planned picnic area and gardens constructed as part of the Project. Applicant has provided a hand drawn sketch of one proposed layout for this area for the Board’s review at Exhibit 017. You will see that the concept includes a recreation path running from east to west, matching what is shown on Exhibit 032. Also included is a pleasantly graded picnic lawn overlooking the scenic view and winter sledding hill. The old silo is envisioned as preserved and potentially re-invigorated through some sort of future renovation to become potentially a F&B service area location for future events or supporting facilities for the reimagined space. A large grass area is included in the front of the barn which could be flooded for ice skating in winter, or used for other purposes as determined over time. The parking and picnic area (as well as select pathways) are proposed as permeable stone. This will help create a more rustic charm and will limit the impervious surfaces proposed by the development. The Applicant would envision the potential for a tent or event lawn below the barn itself, and for shared use arrangements between public and private events located on the property. We recognize that this is a departure from the original concept, but are excited about this new design and its positive impact on the overall community being envisioned. You will note we have also moved the walking path closer to the homes, as requested in staff comments. 4. Additional Roadway Connection and New Housing from Legacy Farm Spur Road (Mountainview Drive). Attached as Exhibit 036 please find an overall concept plan (Sheet C1 of the Plan Set) provided here as a sole exhibit for discussion purposes in reviewing proposed changes. This overall plan shows the newly aligned IC Road, as well as the newly proposed Mountainview Drive.1 In previous submissions Mountainview Drive was shown as a right of way only. In refining the plans, Applicant has adjusted its designs and was able to reduce the impervious areas projected sufficiently to incorporate this roadway and the homes shown. This reduction came through a combination of elements, but will be primarily achieved through the reduction of home footprint sizes, as well as the reduction of the impervious areas planned for the barn lot (described above). While the current footprints are showing a slight overage in terms of allowed lot coverage, Applicant will be refining the footprint sizes prior to final plat, and has no concern that the coverage can be accommodated. Applicant believes that the homes shown on this roadway relate logically to the street and that the Roadway connection makes sense and works well with adjacent parcels both on the east and west sides of Old Farm Road (which we previously discussed regarding the right-of-way). As requested in staff comments, Applicant has included an off-street sidewalk on Legacy Farm Extension and has programmed the road to be able to be extended to the IC Road in the Tilley Drive property should that connection be appropriate at some future date. 1 Please note that all road names used are for ease of reference to the plan set. Road names must be approved by the City and proposed by Applicant. Applicant will propose final road names as part of its final plat. 5 5. Commercial 1 Limited Retail Sample Lot Layout and Proposed Regulatory Framework for Height. As outlined in Applicant’s original submission, the goal of this PUD permit process and the discussion currently underway is to solidify the most important aspects of this planned unit development in a permit that creates a solid foundation upon which each subsequent use can be built. The Applicant is proposing a new road network and existing road network improvements, open space and public spaces that amount to about 25% of all the land involved in the Project and the construction of communal amenities such as playgrounds and dog parks designed to serve more than just residents of the Project. In pursuing these permits the Applicant will be obligated to these commitments, which are well beyond anything that can be sustained by the 146 for-sale homes now proposed. The foundation of this vision lies in the ability to consolidate the majority of the density of the development, 305 dwelling units - and potentially up to 351 dwelling units with affordable bonus units - into nine lots, totaling approximately 15.5 acres. Importantly these nine lots are also envisioned by the Applicant and the City to offer commercial opportunities in service of residential dwellings built as well as to offer employment and business opportunities in an easily walkable and accessible distance from the new residences. Further limiting land and building sites available for achieving the density of the parcel. The only way that the density of the project lands can be realized and that the foundational elements of this project can be solidified as shown, is through achieving height waivers of up to four stories in the C1-LR Project lands. Applicant has spent considerable time developing a potential lot layout for the C1-LR lots at the request of Staff and the Board. One sample layout is provided at Exhibit 038. This layout places all of the residential density and creates several areas available for commercial or mixed-use development. The focus was to place buildings adjacent to the street, to hide parking behind structures where possible (or at the top of steep banks where not easily visible), and to develop this sloping site in a manner most consistent with the City regulations currently in place. We will look forward to feedback on this proposed layout, but would reiterate that this is only one possible scenario and that many more scenarios likely exist that achieve the same density and uses in a different configuration. What ANY layout will have in common, is the need to build at four stories to achieve anything close to the underlying density allowed in the PUD, an objective of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations, which have the C1-LR portion of the Project lands as red areas on the future land use map. These areas are defined in the comprehensive plan as follows: “Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These lands are intended to be the most compact and most intensely developed in the City and support employment.” To this end the Applicant has sought to develop a framework of commitments that will enable the board to review future site plans and height waivers to issue based on firm criteria in place in this PUD permit. This framework is attached as Exhibit 039 and contains two main components: a. Framework Plan, Building Envelope Standards: The Applicant has submitted two copies of the framework plan. The first copy contains only the framework and does not contain any building footprints. The second plan contains the framework as well as the building footprints shown at Exhibit 038, which comply with the framework in place. The key elements of this plan include: i. Identification of setbacks to structures along roadways. 6 ii. Required frontage total for buildings on lots facing streets. iii. Landscape buffer and setback areas considerate of grading. iv. Identification of at-grade parking levels and garage access locations. v. Identification of parking line, behind which all parking will be located. When reviewed in context with the design guide (discussed below), buildings proposed can be determined compliant or non-compliant with the framework in place. Therefore, allowing up to the maximum height built into the framework to proceed. b. Design Guide: To create something we thought would be more easily understood and regulated we took direction from the City Center Form Based Code and as a result our proposed Design Guide mirrors portions of the City’s existing Form Based Code requirements. It provides written information pertaining to both the primary and secondary façade of each building/lot. The design guide outlines the height and number of stories permitted (currently allowing up to 5 stories). It details glazing percentages required, step backs at rooflines, building breaks and spacing between entrances. Where possible, the design guide will reference the framework plan. Together, these two documents create a set of rules and a framework where height sufficient to realize project density would be allowed. Applicant would encourage feedback and a robust discussion of the items within this framework. This is a first pass, drafted to be in keeping with the character of development Applicant is currently proposing in its Phase I multi-family area. We are open to discussing the particulars of this code and very much look forward to the review and feedback of the board. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Intersection Improvements. At the request of Staff and the Board, the Applicant has reviewed the Tilley Drive traffic study. A fully updated traffic impact analysis is attached at Exhibit 014. Notably, the report concludes that the study area for the project will experience “acceptable levels of service,” with the full build out of the R1 project lands, the entirety of the C1-LR project lands as well as up to 50% of the trips allocated to the buildout of the IC lands. The Applicant has proposed a number of specific improvements as part of this Project to achieve acceptable levels of service on surrounding roads. These specific improvements are enumerated in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Applicant has redesigned its proposed improvements to Kimball Avenue in this submission, limiting the improvements to the current paved width as requested by the Director of Public Works. Applicant believes that this traffic impact analysis is in line with the findings of the Tilley Drive study commissioned by the City, and that the results of the third-party review engaged will confirm the findings of our engineer. Applicant would request that as part of this PUD the Board issue a finding allocating 887 PM peak hour trips to the project. Applicant is happy to periodically verify the trips and traffic conditions and to only build improvements noted when warranted. However, Applicant does wish to solidify its acceptable traffic impacts within the framework of improvements which Applicant is committing to make. 7. Project Phasing Framework and Updated Phasing Plan. 7 Applicant has updated the project phasing plan and is including the plan as a separate exhibit to this application at Exhibit 040. The Phasing Plan includes named phases, highlighted with different colors. Each named phase has a number at the end, which is the presumed sequence. Sequencing is based off of the planned construction of infrastructure. In particular, sewer and water connections are drivers of the sequence as those connections must be complete back to mains before any homes can be built and sold. Applicant wishes to reiterate that this plan may need to change as the project details are more thoroughly understood and assumptions made here are proven or disproven by the facts of the construction project. While most of the phases are self-explanatory on the plan, we would like to spend a moment discussing the “IC Roadway and Construction Staging Area Phase 1,” as well as the “Soil Stockpile and Fill Area Phase 4.” Both of these phases or related more to construction logistics than to specific buildings being constructed. These phases are being located and requested based on Applicant’s experience during the Hillside project, which with its similar existing conditions, scale and duration has provided the Applicant with better information as to how to successfully manage the challenges of such a large construction site and extended duration infrastructure project. The Construction Staging Area is located immediately adjacent to Kimball Avenue, in the vicinity of the newly planned IC Roadway, and away from existing or under construction residences. This IC Roadway which is planned for construction as part of this Project will require the clearing and removal of the trees in this area, as well as the leveling of the site and removal of ledge rock present. Applicant seeks to begin the construction project with this removal, creating a large staging area for storage of construction equipment, materials, earth products and other necessary items. This site has excellent access to a large public roadway, which will eliminate the need for large delivery vehicles and trucks dropping off equipment to use Old Farm Road or neighborhood streets. We have also found it challenging to gain access during spring months when smaller local roads are posted to bigger vehicles. This site will eliminate that issue. The site has access to power and sewer readily available for the establishment of a job trailer and other construction personnel requirements. Further, this location is out of site of the residential neighborhood planned and the existing residential neighbors. The site work to construct the roads and units planned is anticipated to take approximately five years. During this time, we intend to use this singular location for the majority of construction staging and materials storage. Its location outside the area being built with homes is intentional, keeping the land clear for homes to be constructed and so the staging area does not need to be moved every few months. Additional benefits of this location include the ability to access the majority of the development with internal haul roads. From this location we can access the entire project with a singular crossing point on Old Farm Road located at the Barn lot. Given this, the majority of infrastructure work will be completed with off-road vehicles. Lastly, with the staging area being situated in a long-term location, we will be able to stabilize the ground around it and establish grass and stone erosion controls that will completely stabilize the area for the duration of the project avoiding temporary measures which require more maintenance and can potentially perform worse during rain events. Applicant has included this item as a phase to be clear that some sort of bond can be issued to secure the plan. Applicant is open to providing a landscape bond of sufficient size to replant and seed this area at completion of the homebuilding and roadbuilding project. The second phase that Applicant would like to provide more detail for is the Soil Stockpile and Fill Area. The Soul Stockpile and Fill Area is designated in this plan to solve a problem, which is a large 8 excess of material created by construction of the roadways and homes proposed. The area designated has the capacity to accept about 40,000 cubic yards of fill material, which can be graded to create a much more appealing development lot, while simultaneously allowing the project site to remain neutral in terms of cut and fill volumes and required off-site transport of fill. For perspective, the volume of fill that can be placed here is about 2,857 dump truck loads, or 5,600 dump truck trips down local roads to and from off-site fill locations. Interestingly, dirt fill is not always readily disposable. Often times sites that can accept these volumes of fill are well outside developed areas, resulting in significant trucking and equally significant environmental impacts. Without knowing where this excess fill could be deposited it is difficult to fully quantify these impacts, but it is conceivable trucking required to dispose of this fill could be 10 or more miles in each direction. A quick Google search provides that a dump truck travels about 5 miles per gallon of diesel on average, creating 22.38 pounds of carbon per gallon burned. In a 20-mile round trip a truck would therefore deposit about 90 pounds of carbon in the atmosphere. This fill area, by that standard would avoid emissions of 128 tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The intention with this area would be to create soil stockpiles with erosion control measures surrounding them. Once major cuts were complete, the entire area would be leveled and reseeded. Applicant would not be destabilizing this entire area and continuously dozing off fill for the duration of the project. In large part this area will remain grassed, save the soil piles accumulating before being spread and seeded. Again, Applicant would agree to provide sufficient financial surety that this spreading and seeding will occur in the form of a bond or letter of credit that can be held until the seeding does occur. With respect to triggers for construction of phases, please find a chart attached as Exhibit 040 which provides such triggers for review and discussion. Please note that in some instances amenities are proposed to be built after construction outside of the residential units now proposed commences or is complete. This is in recognition of what applicant has stated above, that the amenities herein are outsized and unable to be supported by current units proposed for construction. The plan being realized necessitates us working together to ensure the framework created is mutually agreeable and workable and that future projects can be successfully permitted and built. 8. Project Open Space. In reshaping the road network and lot layout in the IC area, the proposed Project open space has grown from 24.43 to 26.20 acres out of 102.6 total acres of land in the Eastview Project A percentage of 25.53%. This is largely due to the expanded central green space lot on Lot 47 as well as the buffer green space at Potash Brook on Lot 48. Applicant is please to be expanding dedicated green space through finding a more efficient layout, as outlined at Section 2 above. 9. Connections to Existing Hillside Neighborhood. In a minor request, Applicant wanted to briefly discuss Staff comment 12 in the March 16, 2021 Development Review Board packet, specifically pertaining to the discussion regarding required connections to Split Rock Court. The recommendation at the end of this comment is that the board should clearly indicate that connections may be required in future phases of the PUD. The Hillside PUD is nearly complete and sold out. All but two homes on Split Rock Court are sold or under contract. None 9 of those sales have contemplated any future connection for Split Rock Court, as the easements granted to the City do not in fact extend to the property line and so preclude those connections without the granting of additional easements. While we can appreciate the need to make clear that future connections might exist, we feel it would be better to focus that language on the plan now being developed, so that the Applicant could make this potential intent known to buyers. As it stands the owners who bought homes on Split Rock Court did not understand that the road might ever be extended, as the easements granted and on the recorded plats do not extend to the property lines. The retroactive granting of such an easement can be very problematic and we would hope to avoid such a scenario or any such permit condition in this area, where the Board has already indicated they did not contemplate a connection and the road design is not favorable to such a connection. This was discussed at length by the Board at an earlier Preliminary Plat hearing and this was the direction we understood from the Board’s commentary. 10. Applicant Waiver Requests. Applicant has provided a number of waiver requests that are detailed in the Staff comments provided for the February 17, 2021 hearing. Applicant wishes to reiterate the importance of a detailed discussion on these items and requests. In general, Applicant would offer the following thoughts with regard to why the waivers are requested, and what information the Applicant hopes the Board will consider in discussing the waivers. Applicant has pursued a PUD review for the entirety of the land it controls, taking a holistic approach to laying out the development potential of the site. The PUD review process contains a number of criteria that cannot truly be understood in the context of a project of this scale on a lot-by-lot basis with singular projects. The best examples being the road networks and green spaces. By reviewing the Project in its entirety as a PUD, Applicant is working with the Board to develop and solidify a framework that works for the City and the Applicant. The intention is that going forward the larger questions of PUD review such as sufficiency or interconnectedness of green space, are complete and no longer needed. The lots we have created can be reviewed on an individual basis, within the context of site plan review, and can be granted permits to build structures and compliant uses one by one as those uses and customers become apparent. The waiver requested for site plan review only is a recognition of this fact. Currently the regulations require PUD review to build a multi-family building in the C1-LR and R12. The result of not issuing the waiver requested creates a confusing and unnecessary situation. After receiving a PUD approval for multi-family lots and sufficient green space, traffic and roadway accommodations, the Applicant would then be required to come in for multiple more PUD’s looking at each lot where multi- family is proposed individually for criteria that have already been evaluated globally. This second pass at discussing the same items on each lot is redundant and unnecessary. Our Hillside project received such a waiver and it was never questioned by the Board as it is fundamental to the intent of this entire process, and the commitments being made by Applicant. In general, the Applicant would ask the Board to review its waivers both at face value and also in terms of the alternative scenario. For instance, the Applicant requested a waiver that a homeowner be allowed to add a covered porch with a zoning permit only. The Applicant would ask the Board in deciding if this is appropriate, to review the alternative permit process that might be required. In this case it seems the homeowner might be required to amend the planned unit development prior to getting a zoning permit for a screened-in porch? This would be incredibly costly, an inefficient use of 10 Board and Staff resources and quite simply overkill. Another of the Applicant’s waiver requests seeks to allow amendments to the PUD to go straight to final plat. Without that waiver (which staff suggested it has strong reservations toward), would that same homeowner be required to have a sketch plan hearing as well? Many of the process waivers requested are designed to be mutually beneficial and allow flexibility in process and efficiency in review. Applicant would encourage the Board to look at each waiver request and to ask what the alternative to the waiver request would be. What are the impacts for efficiency of process at the DRB level, to individuals who own homes, and to the Applicant in pursuing the plan now outlined, the realization of which is the goal of this process? In many cases, we feel the absurdity of the alternative is the justification for the waiver and we hope that this can be the focus of the discussion of each waiver requested. 11. Stormwater comments and concerns. Applicant’s engineer has been in touch with the Stormwater department and we believe that all issues raised can be resolved without implications for the site plan as currently laid out before the Board. We will work to clarify and correct these issues prior to submission of final plat. 12. Proposed Class III Wetland Impacts. Applicant’s environmental consultant identified Class III wetlands in the area of IC Lot 39 in a field delineation in fall of 2019. Applicant also has record of a Class III wetland located on Lot 44 that was delineated in 2013, but which was not located during the site inspection conducted in 2019. These wetlands can be seen on the project plan. The Applicant provided testimony in its December 21, 2020 submission to the Board regarding the quality of these wetlands and a specific request for granting approval to impact these Class III wetlands. A letter from Applicant’s environmental consultant regarding these wetlands is provided at Exhibit 030. Applicant is seeking Board approval per the regulations allowance to impact these wetlands, should they be confirmed to exist in further field work conducted this summer. The reasoning for this request is to enable the proper placement of our stormwater system for the capture of stormwater associated with the IC Roadway, as well as the placement of excess fill, which we are seeking to deposit in the area of Lot 44. Given that our own consultant did not locate one of the wetlands and that current weather conditions are not conducive to a detailed wetland review, Applicant would suggest that this specific waiver be deferred for discussion at Final Plat. At that time Applicant will have a more complete assessment of the area, as well as a more thorough review provided by State biologists and will be in a better position to evaluate the impacts of such planned encroachment. We hope the board is amenable to deferring this issue and to considering it at Final Plat. 13. Location, Type, Phasing and Energy Efficiency of Inclusionary Homes Proposed Applicant has proposed for construction in this newest version of the Project 146 homes. Per the inclusionary ordinance in effect, 10% or 15 homes would be required to be built as inclusionary. The Applicant has provided 8 units designated as inclusionary located in the very first phase of construction, in the center units of the triplexes proposed on Old Farm Road. These eight units are all proposed as three-bedroom and have the option of a fourth bedroom. Per the regulations “a developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two.” This means that the 8 center units planned will result in credit for 12 inclusionary homes. In 11 addition to these homes, Applicant has also proposed two cottage homes in a cottage court (also 3- bedroom) as affordable per the inclusionary requirements. While Applicant appreciates Staff feedback regarding broader transfer of these inclusionary homes, the intent of the regulations does not specify or require this. Applicant met with the Affordable Housing Committee who drafted these regulations on 12/1/2021. In that meeting members of the committee specifically applauded the proposals of this project, including the distribution of the units. Draft minutes of that meeting shared with the Applicant reflect that endorsement. While the Applicant understands that Staff met with the committee in subsequent meetings without the applicant present, and that these minutes and subsequent motions have been finalized to reflect a more ambiguous view, it is unequivocal that the model of using center townhomes in triplexes as inclusionary units was integral to the formation of the South Burlington code, and that the members of the affordable housing committee toured a project in Shelburne that did just this, citing it as an example of success in meetings leading up to the adoption of the ordinance. Applicant was present in those meetings and took this format to the Project proposed. In response to staff concerns Applicant is happy to extend its inclusionary offerings to the cottage homes as well to make up any remaining inclusionary dwellings beyond the eight center townhomes proposed, but does not feel it is appropriate to distribute the affordable homes more broadly across plan types that are not designed to be built for the price point specified in the inclusionary ordinance. The Regulations require the inclusionary dwellings be a certain size and to be “integrated” into the “overall layout.” These homes are located on the most prominent road, in the most prominent structures along the central spine of the proposed development and are larger than the required minimum size. At face value it is difficult to see how they could be considered not to be integrated as required. It is also challenging to understand why the Board would require a much larger and higher priced unit to be sold as inclusionary, when the ordinance specifies a size that is much smaller. In terms of phasing, the Applicant has proposed all inclusionary homes in the first phase of the Project. They will be built alongside market rate homes as they are required to be (they share two walls). It does not seem that any additional phasing restrictions are required to necessitate this construction, as they will be built early in the Project and will be sold alongside connected market rate homes. The fact that these homes are being built in the first phase of the project is also of benefit to the community in that the affordable homes are some of the first that will come available, getting those residents into housing sooner rather than later. With regard to efficiency of the homes constructed, any implication that the base level energy efficiencies of our homes cost extra to the homeowner is inaccurate. Every home built in Eastview will be built to exceed the 2020 Stretch Building Code, with these homes certified by Efficiency Vermont as part of their current energy programs in excess of the stretch code requirements. All inclusionary homes will be built to the same standard as the market rate housing Applicant has taken great care to ensure the efficiency of new homes proposed, well beyond what is typical in the new home market and these items are included as standard. It is of course the case that if a homeowner wants to add solar panels or specialty equipment to their home that these items incur additional cost. These additional purchases have been encouraged by Applicant and we have gone out of our way to accommodate those additions because they are environmentally beneficial. It is always our intent to build as efficient a home as each customer wants 12 and can afford, but baseline efficiencies are not extra. It does not seem the intent of this ordinance would be to require inclusionary homes be provided at no cost items such as solar panels or heat pump furnaces that particular customers choose to purchase for their homes. The effect of such a requirement would simply be to not sell such upgrades to any customer, which would be unfortunate for the goals of the city in terms of efficiency and new construction. 15. Project Construction, Ledge Removal and On-site Stone Processing. The Project as proposed includes the construction of 146 new homes, significant improvements to existing City roads, and the construction of over 1.5 miles of new City roads, including sidewalks, recreation paths, parks and playgrounds. All of this infrastructure is part of the Planned Unit Development currently before the Board and is proposed for construction by the Applicant. The buildings proposed as well as the roads and utilities proposed all require different amounts of ledge removal, and the exact details will not be known until further site investigation is completed leading up to final plat. The Applicant has done preliminary mapping of ledge rock on the Project site, and has determined that ledge removal will be required in many of the phases outlined at Exhibit 040. Ledge removal is a common part of construction for projects of this scale and it was part of the construction process for Hillside (Phase I), permitted by the Board. In Phase I the applicant also processed the stone removed to reduce truck trips and help reduce the impacts of the project for the environment and the surrounding community. Ledge removal was also necessary in Phase I on lots where no building was proposed, to facilitate utility and road connections and to ensure that the lots proposed were buildable for future development contemplated in the PUD without the need for blasting adjacent to newly built homes. In Phase I ledge processing was done in a separate area of the site, as far away from existing residential users as possible. That concept is used again in this project, and the processing is proposed even further away than was possible in Phase I and is located adjacent to a large commercial roadway, which is another significant benefit of the proposed staging location. Staff Comments presented for the February 17th hearing have indicated that the proposed removal of ledge rock located in the IC Roadway and Construction Staging Area Phase 1, should be reviewed under Section 13.16 which contains stringent rules for ledge removal associated with a “resource extraction operation,” that is not “in connection with the construction of a building on the same lot.” Applicant hopes that this consideration is now moot, as a large commercial roadway (and official map connection) is now proposed directly through the middle of the ledge discussed in our original application for removal, making this area no different than the ledge removal required for the other 1.5 miles of road and utilities outlined in the Project. However, Applicant does wish to address the issues raised in staff comments for the benefit of the Board. The clear intent of section 13.16 is to regulate extraction and sale of resources. The Applicant does not believe that the standards of Section 13.16 apply in this instance, in the same way they did not apply in the previously permitted and interconnected Phase I project. The Applicant is not proposing a resource extraction operation. The applicant is proposing to process ledge removed as a result of constructing the planned unit development proposed and to use the processed ledge in building that development to reduce trucking impacts on roads and the environment. The Applicant is not proposing any sale or off-site trucking of ledge removed. Lastly, the Applicant is proposing extensive construction on the lot where the ledge removal will take place in the form of 1.5 miles of roadway, recreation paths 13 and sidewalks, as well as 146 dwellings, playgrounds and parks, and a construction staging area designed to facilitate this work in a safe and efficient manner with easy access to a commercial roadway. Previous plat permits issued by the Board have made clear that for zoning purposes the lots that make up the Project must be viewed as one lot. Specifically, the Boards decision in a recent subdivision permit #SD-20-26 pertaining to this exact land, states at point 4, page 3 of the permit: “For the purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. (emphasis added)” The definition of a PUD in the Regulations makes clear that a planned unit development (which the Project is) consists of “One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity (emphasis added).” Given this, the Applicant does not believe that Section 13.16 applies, because the removal is in clear connection with construction on the same lot. Staff’s comments with regard to this issue seem in contrast to the environmentally sensitive development which is at the core of the City’s comprehensive plan goals, and has been the goal of the regulations and energy codes put in place. The Vision statement of the Comprehensive plan includes “emphasizing sustainability.” The specific goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to “reduce energy consumption city wide.” In response to this vision and goal, the Applicant is working proactively with the natural resource committee to preserve animal crossings, we are working with the energy committee to regulate our roofing shingles to have a lower solar reflectance index rating, and we are working with Efficiency Vermont under the energy stretch codes to certify homes beyond the efficiency required by state and local regulations. The suggestion that we should truck in fill (adding significant carbon emissions for the haul trucks, congestion on local roads adding additional unnecessary emissions, and added wear and tear on surface roads) and ignore the readily available resource at hand has serious impacts and is fundamentally unsustainable, as opposed to using an on-site resource to construct a project which is the definition of sustainability. The construction of the Project proposed will require hundreds of thousands of yards of processed stone products. The project has the potential to produce that stone, on site, in a sustainable way, eliminating any trucking impacts from going to local quarries (and also eliminating the impacts of removing that rock fill which might be left if processing is not allowed). As outlined in our original letter the reuse of on-site processed stone, without consideration to removing that stone from the site if not used) will have the impact of: a. Reducing dump truck trips offsite by 18,571 trips. b. Reducing dump truck road travel on local and state roads by a minimum of 102,135 miles, which assumes use of the nearest public quarry for material and is likely an underestimate given that quarries further away price product more competitively and can often be more cost effective despite longer trucking routes. c. Reducing overall project carbon emissions by a minimum of 230 tons of greenhouse gasses. The Applicant will be providing detailed analysis of the ledge removal planned for this project at Final Plat. With the road networks solidified, Applicant will complete soil borings to determine the exact extent of ledge present, and will develop blasting plans and impact mitigation plans for the work proposed. Applicant will also model noise from the proposed stone processing and will present mitigation of noise as necessary to ensure acceptable levels of noise at the nearest residential locations. The Applicant is prepared to work with the Board to provide any exhibits requested that pertain to 14 ensuring this work is conducted responsibly and is considerate to neighbors. The Applicant is also providing bonding and surety for each phase, which can be used to ensure re-stabilization and seeding of any impacted areas that are not built upon in the event of unforeseen project delays. The ability to use this material is integral to the success of the Project planned and is part of how this neighborhood will be created in a sustainable fashion, reducing energy consumption in line with Comprehensive Plan goals. We hope that the Board will agree with the Applicant that this proposed removal is a net benefit to the community and the environment, and that the provisions of Section 13.16 are not applicable to removal of stone in connection to construction on the same lot, as the language of that section makes plain. We appreciate the Board’s and Staff’s time and review of this Application and we look forward to discussing it further. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Director of Development Enclosures Eastview at O'Brien Farm Master Plan and PUD Area and Coverage and DensityZoning District Areas Per Sheet C‐1A Updated  4/2/2021Zoning District Coverage Allowed in District Buildings Only. Coverage Allowed in District Combined R1*  18% 30%C1LR  40% 70%R12 40% 60%IC  40% 70%Zoning District Area of Land In Eastview Master Plan (includes adjustments to district lines shown at Sheet C‐1A) Area in AcresArea of Land In Eastview Master Plan (includes adjustments to district lines shown at Sheet C‐1A) Area in Square Feet Existing Building Coverage Existing All Impervious Total Coverage Proposed Buildings Total Coverage Proposed RoadsCombined Coverage All Impervious Coverage Allowed Buildings  Coverage Allowed All R1  39.20 1707552 11900 27230 284125 229820513945307359.36 512265.6C1LR  23.40 1019304 0 7268872688407721.6 713512.8R12 1.20 52272 0 170631706320908.8 31363.2IC  38.80 1690128 0 7715977159676051.2 1183089.6Total  102.60 4469256.00 11900.00 27230.00 284125.00 396730.00 680855.00 1412040.96 2440231.20Maximum Coverages Square Feet Acres  PercentageMaximum Building Coverage Entire PUD/Master Plan 1412040.96 32.416 31.59%Maximum Total Impervious PUD/Master Plan2440231.2 56.02 54.60%*Our understanding is that the Incluzionary Oridnance in effect allows for a 20% increase in coverage for accomodation of offset units provided. This coverage limit includes that 20% offset.    Lamoureux & Dickinson i Consulting Engineers, Inc. Eastview - O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment March 30, 2021 Executive Summary The following summarizes the results of the revised traffic impact assessment (TIA) for the second phase of the O’Brien Home Farm mixed use development project (hereafter referred to as “Eastview” or “the Project”). Eastview proposes to develop lands of O’Brien Brothers located along Kimball Avenue, Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington. The exact eventual development of the full site is currently unknown. In reviewing the land and zoning in place, a potential development scenario has been developed in order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts as the Project develops. This development scenario, broken down into smaller parts with corresponding peak hour trips, will be the benchmark against which future development proposals are evaluated. This TIA uses the following development as represent the potential “Full-Build” development scenario: ! 126 residential units in single-family residences and duplexes (R1 Area), ! 289 mid-rise multi-family units (C1-LR Area), ! 120 attached congregate care units (C1-LR Area), ! a 120 room hotel (C1-LR Area), ! 14,000 sf of retail space (C1-LR Area), ! 97,000 sf of medical-dental office and commercial space (C1-LR Area) and, ! 309,000 sf of medical-dental office and commercial space (I-C Area). The initial construction phases will be to construct the residential units in the R1 and C1-LR Areas. Subsequent construction phases of the proposed commercial uses will be market driven. Because this Project will most likely be developed over an extended time period, this TIA examines future traffic conditions over a 10-year period commencing in 2022 instead of the traditional 5-year period. This revised TIA also recognizes the recently completed VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan.1 Key transportation planning concepts emerging from that study for this geographic area include: C Constructing several new connector streets and I-89 Exit 12B to provide alternate travel routes diverting traffic from existing streets. C Reducing future vehicular traffic levels by a) constructing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements to encourage increased multi-modal trips, and b) implementing transit enhancements. C Constructing moderate intersection upgrades only where absolutely necessary (i.e., permitting reduced levels of service). The study area of this TIA extends from Hinesburg Road on the west to Gregory Drive on the east, and from Williston Road south to Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road. Capacity analyses determined that each major intersection in this study area will experience acceptable levels of service upon completion of the proposed development in the R1 and C1-LR Areas plus one-half of the proposed development in the I-C Area. 1 VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan Final Report, VHB, November 2020. Lamoureux & Dickinson ii Consulting Engineers, Inc. Acceptable levels of service will also be maintained with further development in the I-C area beyond the 50% build-out threshold at all but two intersections. The first is Kennedy Drive/Kimball Ave/Bayberry Ln. This intersection will be approaching capacity with full build of the I-C Lots. Although the overall intersection level of service will remain at LOS D, individual approaches will begin to experience LOS E/F with the predicted year 2032 full build peak hour traffic volumes. It appears that future construction of the Tilley Drive connections will not materially affect the foregoing. The second intersection is Hinesburg Rd/Old Farm Rd. With future levels of service for traffic exiting Old Farm Rd predicted to drop to LOS F with full build of Eastview, a short-term solution would be to widen the Old Farm Rd approach to provide a short right-turn slip lane. A better long-term solution, however, will be to divert traffic off from Old Farm Rd by constructing one or more of the Tilley Drive connections. The following transportation improvements are included in the Eastview development: C In conjunction with Hillside (presently under construction), Eastview will construct an extensive network of new interconnected sidewalks and shared-use paths linking with the City’s existing sidewalk and shared use path network along Kimball Ave, Kennedy Drive, Eldredge St and Hinesburg Rd. C Implementing traffic calming measures on Old Farm Road to slow traffic traveling through the residential area and to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. C Relocating the Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd intersection to line up directly across the existing office complex at #20-30 Kimball Ave. This will increase the distance between Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Rd from 200’ to 560’. C The I-C Lots access road will form the northerly half of one of the future Tilley Drive connections. The southerly half of that connection will be located on and constructed by the adjacent Mountain View Office Park. Eastview also proposes to construct the following roadway and intersection improvements as development progresses towards completion (full build): Kennedy Dr / Kimball Ave intersection C Modify the signal phasing to provide split phasing for the Kimball Ave and Bayberry Lane approaches after completing residential development in the R1 and C1-LR Areas and/or upon commencing commercial development in the C1-LR Area. Kimball Ave / Old Farm Rd intersection C Relocate the intersection after completing residential development in the R1 and C1-LR Areas and/or upon commencing commercial development in the C1-LR Area. C Restripe the pavement markings on Kimball Ave to provide left-turn lanes in both directions at the relocated intersection. C Install a new traffic signal when warranted. Kimball Ave / I-C Lots Access Rd intersection C Construct this intersection upon commencement of commercial development in the I-C Area. C Restripe the pavement markings on Kimball Ave to provide left-turn lanes on both directions at the new intersection. C Install a new traffic signal when warranted. C Add an exclusive right-turn lane exiting the I-C Lots Access Road once the Tilley Dr connection is completed or development of the I-C lots exceeds the proposed 50% Build threshold. Conceptual sketches illustrating the above recommended improvements on Kimball Ave are attached to the TIA. Lamoureux & Dickinson iii Consulting Engineers, Inc. Based on this Project’s estimated pm peak hour trip generation and directional patterns, it will also pay almost $3,000,000 in state and local transportation impact fees to mitigate its projected traffic impacts at other nearby off-site intersections and almost $700,000 in local recreation impact fees. A large majority of the latter will be used to construct off-site sidewalk and shared use path improvements throughout the City of South Burlington. The TIA concludes that with the above improvements and impact fees, the existing street network in the immediate vicinity will have sufficient capacity and safety to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Eastview - O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment June 16, 2020 rev. March 30, 2021 1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines the potential traffic congestion and safety impacts of the second phase of the O’Brien Home Farm development, hereafter referred to as Eastview or the Project. The O’Brien Home Farm originally included lands east of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, along both sides of Old Farm Road, and along both sides of Kimball Avenue. Large portions of the farm have been developed over the years. Most recent is the Hillside at O’Brien Farm2 development presently under construction between Hinesburg Road, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road. Eastview includes lands located on both sides of Old Farm Rd, fronting on Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue. Specifically, the land involved contains three distinct zoning districts, the Residential 1 PRD zoning district (“R1”), the Commercial 1 - Limited Retail zoning district (“C1-LR”) and the Industrial-Commercial zoning district (“I-C”). Each district allows for specific uses. City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations (LDR) require uses to be located on the land that is zoned accordingly; preventing mixing of certain uses across zoning lines. Given this, the potential uses in distinct areas of the Project will be identified herein by the zoning district in which those uses are located. The following mix of residential and commercial development is permissible in the R1 and C1-LR Areas of the Project: C 126 residential units in single-family residences, duplexes and triplexes (R1),3 C 289 mid-rise multi-family units (C1-LR), C 120 attached congregate care units (C1-LR), C a 120 room hotel (C1-LR), C 14,000 sf of retail space (C1-LR), and C 97,000 sf medical-dental office and commercial space (C1-LR). The above development will be accessed by several new side streets located on both sides of Old Farm Rd and also linking with the adjacent Phase One development. The northerly portion of Old Farm Road will be relocated; moving the intersection of Kimball Ave and Old Farm Rd ±360 ft east to be directly opposite the existing driveway access serving the office complex at 20-30 Kimball Ave and 275 Kennedy Dr. Eastview also includes several new industrial/commercial lots located further east on Kimball Ave in the I-C zoning district. While a range of uses are possible, this TIA is based on 309,000 sf of medical-dental office and commercial space to be distributed among the new I-C lots. This sizing is based on a schematic analysis of possible building and parking layouts, and represents an estimate of this area’s future build-out potential. The I-C Lots will be served by a separate new street accessing directly onto Kimball Ave. The I-C Lots street will also form part of one of the Tilley Drive connections shown the City of South Burlington’s Official Map. The location of the Project and the intersections which will be examined in this TIA are shown in Figure 1. 2 Previously referred to as Phase One. 3 All of which will be treated herein as single-family units for trip generation purposes. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 1 - Project Location and Study Intersections More specifically, this TIA will: C Project present and future background design hour traffic volumes and traffic congestion conditions at major intersections near the Project. C Determine the future vehicular trip generation and peak hour directional patterns of the proposed land- uses. C Evaluate whether the proposed development will create unreasonable traffic congestion conditions. C Examine traffic safety conditions. C Identify the scope of traffic improvements required to mitigate the effects of the proposed development. For the purpose of this TIA, it is anticipated that construction of this Project will begin in 2022, and will require 5-10 years to complete. This TIA therefore examines future traffic conditions for the years 2022 and 2032. 2.0 Background Traffic Volumes For this study, background traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts performed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). The study area of this TIA extends from Hinesburg Rd east to Industrial Avenue, and from Williston Rd south to Kennedy Dr and Old Farm Rd. The existing and proposed intersections which will be examined in this TIA are shown in Figure 1. Weekday turning movement count data is available at all but one of the existing intersections; Williston Rd/Gregory Dr. Unfortunately, as work on this TIA was beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, and the resulting sharp decline in traffic volumes has prevented our being able to perform new weekday am and pm peak period turning movement counts at this intersection. Future traffic conditions at this location will be addressed in a supplement to this TIA when normal traffic patterns resume. Three new intersections are associated with this Project. The first, Kennedy Dr/Two Brothers Dr, will be constructed as part of the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One development. Future peak hour turning movement volumes for this intersection were obtained from the TIA performed by this office for that Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. development. The second proposed intersection is Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd. The northerly portion of Old Farm Rd is proposed to be relocated as part of this Project; moving this intersection approximately 360 ft to the east to line up opposite the access to the office complex on the north side of Kimball Ave. The third new intersection will be located on Kimball Ave at the new street serving the I-C Lots. Existing traffic count data indicates that the adjacent street network in the immediate vicinity of this Project experiences its highest traffic volumes during the afternoon peak hour period. Hourly traffic data from nearby VTrans continuous count stations (CTC) located in South Burlington and Williston reinforce this. Thus, the pm peak hour is the time period during which the design hour volume (DHV) generally occurs. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly traffic volume that occurs in a given year, and is used in the design of highways and intersections to determine existing and future traffic congestion conditions. To adjust the observed peak hour volumes to a design hour (DHV) condition, daily adjustment factors corresponding to the dates of the turning movement counts were calculated from nearby CTC’s. Additional adjustments were also made to account for future background traffic growth from the year of each turning movement count to the years 2022 and 2032. From VTrans data4, traffic growth in Vermont’s urban areas during the 2015 - 2019 period was flat (zero growth). From 2019 to 2022 and from 2022 to 2032, VTrans projects 2% and 5% traffic growth rates, respectively. Detailed design hour volume calculations, together with figures showing the resulting estimated 2022 and 2032 background peak hour volumes for each intersection, are enclosed in Appendix A. Note: Appendices are enclosed under separate cover. 3.0 Other Approved Development Peak Hour Trips To the above ‘No-Build’ pm peak hour volumes must also be added trips generated by other nearby major developments that have received their state and local permits, but have not yet been constructed. The first “Other Development” is the Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One development. Although this development is presently under construction and some homes have been completed, it is treated in this TIA as an unbuilt development. Estimated morning and afternoon peak hour trips for Hillside at O’Brien Farm Phase One were obtained from the TIA for that project.5 The second “Other Development” is the proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center to be located on Community Drive at Technology Park. Estimated morning and afternoon peak hour trips were also obtained from the TIA for that project.6 The total peak hour trips from the above two developments, together with figures showing the sum of the 2022 and 2032 background peak hour volumes and other approved development trips, are illustrated in the figures contained in Appendices E and F. This is also known as the “No-Build” development scenario (see pg. 7). 4 Continuous Traffic Counter Report Based on 2018 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, February 2019 and unpublished 2019 traffic data. 5 O’Brien Home Farm PUD - Phase 1 Traffic Impact Assessment, Lamoureux & Dickinson, August 8, 2016 6 Proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center Traffic Impact Study, VHB, September 4, 2019 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4.0 Project-Generated Peak Hour Trips Eastview’s peak hour trip generation was estimated using published trip generation rates7 for the proposed residential land-uses. In the case of the proposed commercial land-uses, the estimated peak hour trips are intended to include a broad range of potential businesses. It is proposed that medical-dental offices will comprise a large portion of the commercial development. Should actual land-uses and their sizes differ substantially from the above, careful attention will be needed to track the resulting peak hour trip generation relative to the estimated trips outlined below. The ITE has also developed a methodology for estimating the internal capture of pm peak hour trips between the residential, office space, restaurant and retail components of mixed-use developments.8 While Eastview includes connections with the Hillside at O’Brien Farm development which will logically expand the internal trip capture between them, for the purpose of this study, the internal capture calculations have been limited to just this Project. Additionally, internal trip capture for the I-C Area has been calculated separately from the R1 and C1-LR Areas. The same methodology also incorporates modal-split calculations to account for non- vehicular travel. For the purpose of this TIA, however, all trips were estimated to be vehicle trips without any credit for transit or bicycle/pedestrian trips. Some commercial land-uses also typically attract “pass-by” trips in addition to creating new “primary” trips. Pass-by trips are generated by motorists who are already driving by the site on the adjacent roadways; in this case Kennedy Drive or Kimball Ave. Instead of simply driving by, they enter the Project, and then exit in the same direction that they were originally traveling. For the purpose of this TIA, potential pass-by trips were not estimated. As specific commercial uses are identified, however, they may become significant in reducing future off-site traffic impacts. In addition to the above, both Hillside and Eastview have been designed to support alternate travel modes (transit, walking & biking) through the use of extensive sidewalks, bike paths and their proximity to existing local bus routes. Mixed-uses have also been incorporated into the two developments, further encouraging alternate travel modes. Under VTrans’ Travel Demand Management Guidelines, these physical attributes qualify Eastview to a 6% reduction in its peak hour trip generation. The resulting peak hour vehicular trip generation are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Detailed calculations are enclosed in Appendix B. The directional distributions of weekday peak hour project trips were estimated based on U.S. Census residence to work travel patterns for the City of South Burlington. This data is available in two formats; the workplace destinations of South Burlington residents, and the origins of people traveling to work in South Burlington. Since residential trip patterns are primarily determined by the geographic distribution of employment opportunities9, the workplace destinations of South Burlington residents can be applied to estimate the directional patterns of those trips. Conversely, commercial trip patterns are primarily determined by the geographic distribution of population within an anticipated sphere of influence. Thus, the commercial trip patterns were based on the origins of people traveling to work in South Burlington. The foregoing directional patterns will also be influenced by future street connections linking Kimball Ave and Community Drive with Tilley Drive. Those connections will provide shorter and more favorable alternate routes for traffic presently using Kimball Ave, Kennedy Drive, Old Farm Rd, Hinesburg Rd and their intersections. Future traffic generated by the I-C Lots will also be able to use that Tilley Dr connection as an alternate route to travel to/from points south of the site. Overall, we estimate that these future connections 7 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition 8 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 3rd Edition 9 Traffic Impact Analysis, American Planning Association, 1984 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. will divert 288 vph and 254 vph during the 2032 am and pm peak hour periods, respectively, with full-buildout of Eastview. Table 1 - O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two, R1 and C1-LR Areas Weekday Peak Hour Project-Generated Vehicle Trips (vte/hr) Land-Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single-Family Residential 23 70 93 80 47 127 Multi-Family Residential (Mid-Rise) 25 72 97 75 48 123 Congregate Care Units 8 16 24 17 14 31 Hotel 33 23 56 33 31 64 Office/Commercial 172 117 289 336 321 657 Total Trips 261 298 559 541 461 1,002 Internal Capture Vehicle Trips 6 6 12 111 111 222 Transit & Non-Motorized Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External Vehicle Trips 255 292 547 430 350 780 Total External Vehicle Trips with 6% TDM Credit 240 274 514 404 329 733 Table 2 - O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two, I-C Area Weekday Peak Hour Project-Generated Vehicle Trips (vte/hr) Land-Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Office/Commercial 449 132 581 411 731 1,142 Internal Capture Vehicle Trips 15 15 30 16 16 32 Transit & Non-Motorized Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External Vehicle Trips 434 117 551 395 715 1,110 Total External Vehicle Trips with 6% TDM Credit 408 110 518 371 672 1,043 Figures illustrating the resulting directional distributions of morning and afternoon peak hour Project- generated trips for the analysis scenarios defined on pg. 7 without the future Tilley Drive connections are enclosed in Appendices C-1 and C-2, respectively. Figures illustrating the resulting directional distributions of morning and afternoon peak hour Project- generated trips for the analysis scenarios defined on pg. 7 with the future Tilley Drive connections are enclosed in Appendices D-1 and D-2, respectively. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 5.0 Traffic Congestion Levels of service (LOS) at intersections are determined by the average control delay; measured in seconds per vehicle. The methodology for analyzing LOS is established by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)10. The analyses were performed using Synchro 10. Table 3 summarizes the LOS and delay criteria for signalized intersections. Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Avg. Delay (sec/veh) Quality of Service Stop Controlled Signal Controlled A B C D E F ≤10 ≤15 ≤25 ≤35 ≤50 >50 ≤10 ≤20 ≤35 ≤55 ≤80 >80 Free flow with little or no queuing Low delays with short queues Moderate delays and queues with occasional cycle failures* Moderate delays and queues with noticeable cycle failures Long delays and queues with frequent cycle failures Very long delays and queues with continued cycle failures * A cycle failure occurs when a vehicle has to wait more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection. The City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations (LDR’s) identify LOS D as the minimum standard for the overall level of service at signalized intersections. The LDR’s also identify LOS D as the minimum standard for each through movement on the major street. VTrans’ Level of Service Policy11 for the state highway system identifies LOS C as the desired design standard, except that reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis, particularly within densely settled areas where the geometric improvements required to achieve LOS C would create negative cultural and environmental impacts. In cases where the existing LOS is less than desired and where the necessary geometric improvements are not feasible, the policy states that a lower LOS may be acceptable, provided that a development’s impact can be effectively mitigated by implementing other congestion management strategies. VTrans’ LOS Policy has been generally interpreted in built-up areas to permit LOS D as an acceptable overall intersection rating for signalized intersections. Also, that individual lane groups or approaches may experience LOS E. However, should an individual lane group or approach experience LOS F or a volume/capacity ratio greater than 1.0, the intersection is considered to have failed. In cases where an intersection fails under projected no-build and/or build conditions, mitigation may be required, if reasonably possible, in order to mitigate a development’s traffic impacts and not exacerbate the no-build conditions. LOS standards for unsignalized intersections are different than for signalized intersections. The City’s LDR’s do not specifically establish a LOS standard for stop-controlled intersections. On the other hand, VTrans’ LOS Policy identifies LOS D as the minimum design standard for traffic exiting a stop-controlled approach when traffic volumes on that approach equal or exceed 100 vph for a one-lane approach, or 150 vph for a two-lane approach. VTrans does not set a LOS standard for stop-controlled intersections not meeting those approach volume thresholds. 10 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition 11 Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, Vermont Agency of Transportation, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The recently completed VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan12 prepared for the City of South Burlington and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission proposes to mitigate future traffic congestion conditions associated with this and other nearby developments in part by permitting reduced levels of service and constructing moderate intersection upgrades. Instead of large-scale roadway and intersection improvements, that study recommends: C Constructing several new connector streets and I-89 Exit 12B to provide alternate travel routes to divert traffic from existing streets. C Reducing future vehicular traffic levels by a) constructing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements to encourage increased multi-modal trips, and b) implementing transit enhancements. This Project’s impact on future levels of service and average delays was analyzed by performing intersection capacity analyses for four analysis scenarios: C No-Build. This analysis scenario includes background traffic growth and other development-generated traffic as described above, but no Project-generated trips. C Residential-Build. This analysis scenario adds all of the residential development trips from Eastview’s R1 and C1-LR Areas to the No-Build traffic volumes (264 pm peak hour trips). C Partial-Build. This analysis scenario adds all of Eastview’s residential development trips from the R1 and C1-LR Areas plus the projected full-build commercial development trips from the C1-LR Area and 50% of the full-build commercial development trips from the I-C Area (1,255 pm peak hour trips) to the No-Build traffic volumes. C Full-Build. This analysis scenario adds all of Eastview’s residential development trips from the R1 and C1-LR Areas plus the projected full-build commercial development trips from the C1-LR and I-C Areas (1,776 pm peak hour trips) to the No-Build traffic volumes. Figures illustrating the resulting morning and afternoon peak hour analysis scenario volumes without the future Tilley Drive connections are enclosed in Appendices E-1 and E-2, respectively. Figures illustrating the resulting morning and afternoon peak hour analysis scenario volumes with the future Tilley Drive connections are enclosed in Appendices F-1 and F-2, respectively. The Residential-Build analysis scenario was analyzed at all intersections during the 2022 design year, but not during the 2032 design year, as it is expected by then to have been superseded by the 2032 Partial-Build analysis scenario (except potentially at the Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd intersection; see below). The Partial- Build and Full-Build analysis scenarios were analyzed only during the 2032 design year, as development of proposed office and commercial uses are not expected to commence until after 2022. The above analysis scenarios are further expanded by the addition of future connections to Tilley Drive. Thus, the Partial-Build and Full-Build analysis scenarios were also analyzed for existing conditions without those connections and for future conditions with those connections. The traffic congestion impacts of the Project can be identified by comparing the results for each analysis scenario. The results are presented for each intersection below. Detailed intersection capacity analyses worksheets are grouped by intersection and enclosed in Appendices G - P. Williston Road/Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road Table 4 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analysis scenarios. This intersection will not be affected by the future Tilley Dr 12 VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan Final Report, VHB, November 2020. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8 Consulting Engineers, Inc. connections; the analyses below are applicable both with or without those connections. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix G. Table 4 - Williston Rd & Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build C C 21.8 21.9 0.77 0.76 C C 22.5 22.8 0.82 0.81 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build C C C 22.7 23.2 23.4 0.79 0.79 0.79 C C C 23.8 25.9 28.2 0.81 0.86 0.90 Williston Road/Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive Table 5 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analysis scenarios except for the 2032 PM Full-Build; in which the LOS drops to D. This intersection will also not be affected by the future Tilley Dr connections; the analyses below are applicable both with or without those connections. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix H. Table 5 - Williston Rd, Kennedy Dr & Airport Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build C C 20.4 21.2 0.73 0.74 C C 20.6 21.6 0.70 0.72 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build C C C 21.5 24.9 26.2 0.75 0.80 0.82 C C D 21.6 32.0 42.3 0.72 0.84 0.94 Williston Road/Gregory Drive/Palmer Court This intersection is located on a route expected to be used by a significant number of project-generated trips traveling to and from the northeast part of Chittenden County. As noted earlier, detailed capacity analyses could not be performed in this TIA due to the lack of turning movement data at it. Williston Road/Industrial Avenue Table 6 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS B will be maintained for all analysis scenarios except for the 2032 AM and PM Full-Build; in which the LOS drops to C. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix I. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 9 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 6 - Williston Rd & Industrial Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build B B 14.2 14.3 0.80 0.80 B B 14.1 14.4 0.81 0.82 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build B B C 15.2 18.5 21.0 0.84 0.91 0.94 B B C 15.1 19.0 21.5 0.83 0.88 0.90 Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road Table 7 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that LOS C will be maintained for all analysis scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix J. Table 7 - Kennedy Dr & Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build C C 27.6 27.3 0.79 0.79 C C 27.4 27.6 0.82 0.82 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build C C C 28.1 28.3 28.4 0.80 0.80 0.79 C C C 28.0 29.3 30.0 0.83 0.83 0.83 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build C C 27.8 27.9 0.80 0.80 C C 28.9 29.7 0.84 0.84 Kennedy Drive/Two Brothers Drive Table 8 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that the overall intersection levels of service will remain at LOS B or better in all analysis scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix K. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 10 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 8 - Kennedy Dr & Two Brothers Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build B B 15.3 17.1 0.64 0.73 A B 9.7 11.3 0.49 0.61 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build B B B 15.5 18.5 18.7 0.64 0.77 0.77 A B B 9.7 13.3 13.1 0.49 0.73 0.73 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build B B 18.5 19.4 0.77 0.77 B B 13.3 13.2 0.73 0.73 Kennedy Drive/Kimball Avenue Table 9 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that the existing overall intersection levels of service are LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hour periods. By 2032, however, future levels of service will drop to LOS D. Maintaining LOS D as Eastview development progresses will require that the existing traffic signal phasing be modified to split the green phase that presently serves the Kimball Ave and Bayberry Ln approaches simultaneously. In addition to the above, the results of the intersection capacity analyses indicate that combined westbound through/right lane on Kimball Ave and/or the northbound through lanes on Kennedy Dr will begin to experience LOS F and oversaturated traffic congestion conditions (v/c ratio ≥ 1.0) under predicted 2032 Full- Build conditions. Although mitigated somewhat by the future Tilley Drive connections, these results indicate that future traffic congestion conditions at this intersection should be periodically reexamined after Eastview’s Partial-Build peak hour trip generation is reached. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix L. Table 9 - Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build C D 33.6 37.8 0.79 0.82 C D 33.4 37.4 0.84 0.84 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build D D D 37.5 43.8 49.6 0.81 0.96 1.00 D D D 35.1 41.6 49.8 0.89 0.91 1.03 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build D D 43.2 47.0 0.96 1.00 D D 41.1 54.6 0.92 1.08 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 11 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kimball Avenue/Old Farm Road Note: It is proposed to relocate the Kimball Ave/Old Farm Rd intersection as Eastview development progresses. The new intersection will be located to line up directly across the existing driveway to the 20-30 Kimball Ave office complex; creating a new four-way intersection. The analyses shown in Table 11 are for a three-way intersection. Unfortunately, no turning movement data is available for traffic entering and exiting the existing office complex, and the current COVID-19 pandemic has prevented our being able to obtain a representative traffic count. Future traffic conditions associated with a four-way intersection at the new location will be addressed in a supplement to this TIA when normal traffic patterns resume. This intersection is presently located ±200’ east of Kennedy Drive and is stop-sign controlled (unsignalized). Relocating it will increase the separation from Kennedy Drive to ±560’. A new traffic signal will also be installed and the pavement markings on Kimball Ave restriped to create a left-turn lane for traffic turning onto Old Farm Rd. These improvements are illustrated in Figure 2. Table 11 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The results indicate that the existing intersection has adequate capacity to remain in its current location and with stop-sign control with the proposed initial residential only development in the R1 area. The results also indicate that LOS C will be maintained as development of the Project progresses further, the intersection is relocated and the improvements described above made. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix M. Table 11 - Kimball Ave & Old Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Existing Stop-Sign Controlled Intersection (Present Location) 2022 No-Build Residential-Build C E 15.9 39.0 0.15 0.59 B E 14.4 37.6 0.18 0.57 2032 No-Build Residential-Build C E 16.6 45.2 0.17 0.64 B E 14.9 44.1 0.20 0.63 New Relocated and Signalized Intersection 2032 Partial-Build Full-Build C C 21.7 28.2 0.85 0.95 C C 26.2 33.4 0.86 0.99 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build C C 20.8 28.9 0.86 0.98 C C 23.0 24.3 0.82 0.89 Kimball Avenue/I-C Lots Access Road This intersection will be constructed once development of the I-C area commences. It will require, as development of the I-C Lots progresses, installing a traffic signal and restriping the pavement markings on Kimball Ave to provide an exclusive left-turn lane for traffic entering the I-C Lots. These improvements are also illustrated in Figure 2. The Partial-Build analysis scenarios are based on a single shared left- and right-turn lane exiting the I-C Lots Access Rd. Capacity analyses of the Full-Build analysis scenarios identified that an additional improvement in the form of an exclusive right-turn lane for traffic exiting the I-C Lots Access Rd will be needed to maintain desired levels of service. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 12 Consulting Engineers, Inc. This intersection and the I-C Lots access road will form the northerly half of one of the future Tilley Drive connections. The southerly half of that connection will be located on and constructed by the adjacent Mountain View Office Park. The analyses results shown in Table 12 are based on this intersection being signalized once I-C area development reaches 50% of its projected build-out (the Partial-Build analysis scenario). Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix N. Table 12 - Kimball Ave & I-C Lots Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2032 Partial-Build Full-Builda B C 13.7 22.0 0.84 0.98 C D 21.7 35.9 0.87 0.98 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Builda B B 14.3 19.4 0.77 0.89 C C 23.4 28.4 0.88 0.88 a Includes an exclusive right-turn lane exiting the I-C Access Rd in addition to signalization and a left-turn lane on Kimball Ave. Kimball Avenue/Gregory Drive/Community Drive Table 13 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. The capacity analyses are based on this intersection being signalized by the proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center development. The traffic signal has since been installed. The results indicate that LOS B will be maintained for all analyzed development scenarios. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix O. Table 13 - Kimball Ave, Gregory Dr & Community Dr Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build A A 9.9 9.9 0.66 0.66 B B 12.0 12.2 0.74 0.75 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build B B B 10.1 11.2 12.0 0.67 0.71 0.73 B B B 12.5 13.9 14.9 0.76 0.80 0.81 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build B B 11.5 12.2 0.71 0.73 B B 14.1 15.2 0.77 0.79 Hinesburg Road/Old Farm Road Table 14 presents the results of the intersection capacity analyses at this intersection. Detailed results are enclosed in Appendix P. Being stop-sign controlled, traffic exiting Old Farm Rd, which is a single lane Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 13 Consulting Engineers, Inc. approach, experiences the delays and levels of service shown in Table 15. Hinesburg Rd traffic travels through this intersection with only minimal delays. Table 14 - Hinesburg Rd & Old Farm Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Design Year Analysis Scenario AM PM Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio Overall LOS Avg. Delay Max. V/C Ratio 2022 No-Build Residential-Build D D 32.0 32.6 0.41 0.43 D D 27.5 28.7 0.38 0.41 2032 No-Build Partial-Build Full-Build E E E 35.6 40.9 41.8 0.45 0.54 0.55 D E F 31.0 42.8 51.4 0..43 0.61 0.69 2032 with future connections Partial-Build Full-Build C C 24.1 24.5 0.25 0.26 C C 19.3 19.9 0.19 0.19 The results indicate that this intersection presently experiences LOS D during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Future levels of service will drop to LOS E as development of Eastview progresses, ultimately dropping to LOS F in the 2032 PM Full-Build analysis scenario. The solution to that, as can be seen in the bottom rows of Table 14, is the construction of the Tilley Drive connections. 6.0 Traffic Safety Vehicular traffic safety is influenced by many factors, including road width, pavement conditions, sight distances, lighting, proper signing and pavement markings, speed limits, alignment, number and spacing of accesses, etc. The following discusses several of the more important factors with respect to conditions on the adjacent street network in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Speed limits on the major streets adjacent to the Project are typical of urban streets; i.e., 30-40 mph. The speed limit on Old Farm Rd is 25 mph. The new development streets are also proposed to have 25 mph speed limits. Safe traffic conditions on the new development streets will be provided by designing those roads and their intersections in accordance with accepted standards, and by providing adequate sight distances, street lighting, pavement markings and traffic signs. The Project also proposes to add new traffic-calming features on Old Farm Rd in order to slow vehicular traffic and provide a safer environment for pedestrians. Crash History Intersections and roadway segments which experience a statistically significant above average crash rate are identified as high crash locations. VTrans has traditionally updated its High Crash Location Report13 every two years based on the most recent five-year crash history. The most recent report, however, is for the 2012-2016 five-year period. The Identified high crash locations within the study area of this TIA are shown in Table 16. 13 High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2012-2016, Vermont Agency of Transportation, August 2017 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 14 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Of the 75 crashes that occurred at the Williston Rd/Hinesburg Rd/Patchen Rd intersection, 70 were property damage only crashes. The remaining 5 crashes resulted in 9 injuries. The Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) segment begins just west of the Airport Rd intersection and continues east through the Kennedy Dr/Airport Dr intersection. Of the 75 crashes that occurred on this 0.3 mile long segment of Williston Rd, 63 were property damage only crashes. The remaining 12 crashes resulted in 14 injuries. It is pertinent to note that the Williston Rd/Kennedy Dr/Airport Dr intersection was not identified as a high crash location. With 36 of the 75 crashes in this segment occurring at the intersection, its presence is the primary reason for the segment being identified as a high crash location. Table 16 - High Crash Locations Location # Crashes Actual Crash Rate Actual/Critical Ratio Intersection Williston Rd/Hinesburg Rd/Patchen Rd Segment Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) 75 75 1.373a 8.461b 1.808 1.298 a crashes per million vehicles b crashes per million vehicle miles Table 17 provides a breakdown of the crash types at the above locations. It shows that just over one-half of the crashes in the above high crash locations are rear-end crashes. Signalized intersections typically do experience greater numbers of rear-end crashes, which are generally minor and do not result in severe injuries; unlike opposing direction collisions which traffic signals are intended to prevent. Table 17 - Intersection Crash Types Crash Type Williston Rd/ Hinesburg Rd Intersection Williston Rd (mm 1.658 - 1.958) Segment Rear End Same Direction Sideswipe Opposing Dir. Sideswipe L/T Angle Broadside No Turns T/T Broadside 31 12 - 9 6 22 17 2 9 5 R/T Angle Broadside Head On Single Vehicle Other Unknown Total 1 3 1 1 11 75 1 4 2 7 6 75 7.0 Multi-Modal Facilities Eastview will construct an extensive network of new sidewalks and shared use paths linking with South Burlington’s existing sidewalk and path network in Hillside (Eldredge St, Two Brothers Dr and O’Brien Farm Rd) Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 15 Consulting Engineers, Inc. and on Kimball Ave, Kennedy Dr and Hinesburg Rd. Every street in the Hillside and Eastview developments will have a sidewalk and/or a shared-use path on one or both sides. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals will also be provided at each new signalized intersection on Kimball Ave (i.e., at Old Farm Rd and at the I-C Lots Access Road). Eastview’s new shared-use bicycle paths will also fill in existing gaps along Kimball Ave; providing improved connectivity for existing bicyclists and pedestrians. Notably, Eastview’s proposed sidewalk and shared-use path network includes several off-road facilities directly linking Hillside, Eastview along Old Farm Rd and the new I-C Lots Area. One of the functions of these links will be to provide more direct travel routes from the Eastview development to the existing bus stops on Kennedy Dr. Figure 3 highlights the proposed off-road ped/bike facilities together with the locations of the existing bus stops. Also shown is the new Kennedy Dr/Two Brothers Dr signalized intersection which will be constructed as part of the Hillside development. This intersection will provide new crosswalks and pedestrian signals enabling bicyclists and pedestrians from Hillside and Eastview to reach the existing shared-use path located on the north side of Kennedy Dr. This office also previously prepared a concept plan14 showing traffic calming measures and crosswalks along Old Farm Rd. That plan has since been superseded by a preliminary plan15, included herein as Figure 4, illustrating existing and proposed shared-use paths serving the Hillside and Eastview developments together with proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities and traffic calming measures on Old Farm Rd. The above proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities will encourage non-vehicular travel not only among the various Hillside and Eastview neighborhoods, but to and from neighboring areas and other off-site destinations (i.e., schools and other community facilities). They will also provide convenient access to local transit service on Kennedy Drive. Local and regional transit service linking South Burlington with surrounding communities is provided by Green Mountain Transit (GMT). Green Mountain Transit offers several routes serving the Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave area. The first is the Red Line which travels Williston Rd to/from destinations in Burlington and Williston. The closest Red Line bus stops are on Williston Rd near its intersection with Kennedy Dr. Service on this route is presently provided on 20-minute peak period headways. The second GMT local transit route is the Purple Line. The Purple line originates and terminates in downtown Burlington with intermediate stops at the UVM Medical Center and the University Mall. From the UVM Medical Center, it travels to Dorset St and then to Kennedy Dr. The route circulates in counter-clockwise fashion along Kennedy Dr east of Hinesburg Rd, thence to Airport Dr, White St and Hinesburg Rd back to Kennedy Dr where it continues west on Kennedy Dr back to Dorset St. From Dorset St, it retraces its route back to downtown Burlington. The closest bus stops along this route on Kennedy Dr are located at Windridge and in front of the Community Bank just north of Kimball Ave. Service on this route is presently provided on 45-minute peak period headways. The Special Services Transportation Agency (SSTA) also operates the “Tilley Drive Shuttle” serving the medical office buildings on Tilley Drive and the Sphinx Building located just south on Hinesburg Rd. Advance reservations are required to use this shuttle, which originates and terminates at the University Mall. Although it travels Hinesburg Rd south of Kennedy Dr in both directions, it does not make any intermediate stops. The Tilley Drive Shuttle operates at 60–90-minute headways during peak periods. 14 Old Farm Road Traffic Calming Measures, Lamoureux & Dickinson, May 28, 2020 15 Untitled plan showing existing and proposed shared-use paths together with Old Farm Rd bicycle and traffic calming measures, VHB, March 19, 2021 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 16 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 8.0 Road & Intersection Improvement Phasing It is anticipated that construction of O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two will begin with the 126 proposed single- family/duplex/triplex residential units in the R1 area. Following that, the remaining residential and commercial development will be market driven. The following presents thresholds for implementing the above identified road and intersection improvements. Kimball Ave / Old Farm Rd Intersection Old Farm Rd and its existing intersection with Kimball Ave has sufficient capacity to support the development of the proposed residential units in the R1 and C1-LR Areas. The principal traffic congestion issue will be queues of westbound traffic on Kimball Ave extending past Old Farm Rd at times during peak afternoon periods due to the relatively short distance between Old Farm Rd and Kennedy Drive. This is an existing condition which is not anticipated to be materially impacted by this initial development phase. Additional development in the C1-LR Area will necessitate relocating the northerly section of Old Farm Rd as proposed so that it intersects Kimball Ave directly opposite the access to the 20-30 Kimball Ave office complex. It is not anticipated that future traffic volumes at the relocated intersection will meet the warrants for signalization until approximately one-half of the projected full-build trip generation in the R-1 and C1-LR Areas is reached. This will necessitate future traffic follow-up monitoring as development progresses. Kennedy Drive / Kimball Ave Intersection It is recommended that this intersection’s existing signal phasing be modified as development of the C1-LR Area and/or the I-C Area commences to provide split phasing of the Kimball Ave and Bayberry Dr approaches. This will improve traffic safety, and is a prerequisite to achieving the future levels of service presented herein. 9.0 Transportation Impact Fees This Project will be subject to paying impact fees which are related wholly or in part to transportation. They include: C City of South Burlington - Road Improvement Impact Fee C City of South Burlington - Recreation Impact Fee C District Environmental Commission #4 - Kimball Ave/Community Dr E Intersection Improvements Impact Fee C State of Vermont Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee. Each will be discussed in the following sections. City of South Burlington - Road Improvement Impact Fee The Road Improvement Impact Fee equals $1,010 per unit for single-family dwellings (which by definition in the LDR’s includes duplexes), $670 per unit for multi-family dwellings and $1,000 per pm peak hour trip end for non-residential development. The actual assessed fees are adjusted each year to credit past and future tax payments per the schedules in the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The City’s Road Improvement Impact Fee can be estimated as follows: Single Family Residential Units 126 units $127,260 Multi-Family Units 409 units $274,030 Non-Residential 1,863 pm peak hour trips $1,863,000 Total $2,264,290 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 17 Consulting Engineers, Inc. City of South Burlington - Recreation Impact Fee A large portion of the Recreation Impact Fee is dedicated to the development of shared-use paths and bicycle lanes. In fact, in the projects identified in the City’s FY 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Program as being funded in part by recreation impact fees, shared use path and bike/ped facility projects account for 77% of the allocated recreation impact fees. The recreation impact fee is assessed only on residential development. The base fee for dwellings in structures containing three or less units equals $1,686 per unit. For dwellings in structures containing four or more units the base fee equals $1,180 per unit. The actual assessed fees are again adjusted each year to credit past and future tax payments per the schedules in the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The City’s Road Improvement Impact Fee can be estimated as follows: Single Family & Duplex Units 126 units $212,436 Multi-Family Units 409 units $482,620 Total $695,056 Kimball Ave/Gregory Dr/Community Dr Intersection Improvements Impact Fee This impact fee has been established by the District Environmental Commission #4 to reimburse the FedEx Ground Distribution Center developers for the cost of installing traffic signals and making other improvements at the Kimball Ave/Gregory Dr/Community Dr intersection. The amount of the fee equals $514 per pm peak trip end. This fee may be reduced by 20% since this Project will construct new sidewalks (10% discount) and shared-use paths (10% discount) connecting to existing sidewalks and shared use paths. The discounted fee equals $411 per pm peak trip end. This Project is estimated to generate a total of 433 new pm peak hour trips (at full-build) through this intersection. The resulting impact fee equals $178,050. We also note that this same project is included in the City’s FY 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Program and is shown as being funded in part by the City’s Roadway Improvement Impact Fee. State Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee The Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee was established to provide funding for designated VTrans transportation improvement projects located within a five-mile travel distance of proposed developments. This impact fee is administered by VTrans through the District Environmental Commissions. The impact fee is based on the number of pm peak hour trips that are estimated to travel through the locations of the improvement projects. The number of trips traveling through each highway improvement project were estimated using available pm peak hour turning movement patterns at major intersections. The trips disperse at each intersection; thereby reducing the number of project-generated pm peak hour trips as one moves away from the Project. Detailed pm peak hour trip calculations are enclosed in Appendix Q. Table 18 shows the estimated State Transportation Impact Fees for each transportation improvement project. Table 18 - Act 145 State Transportation Impact Fees Transportation Improvement Project Distance (Road Miles) Impact Fee per PM Peak Hour Trip PM Peak Hour Tripsa Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee Burlington - Champlain Parkway 4.1 $ 2,069 39 $ 80,691 Burlington - Shelburne St & Locust St Roundabout 4.1 $ 1,217 62 $ 75,454 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 18 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Transportation Improvement Project Distance (Road Miles) Impact Fee per PM Peak Hour Trip PM Peak Hour Tripsa Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee Colchester - US 7 & I-89 Exit 16 4.8 $ 1,170 60 $ 70,200 Essex Jct. - Crescent Connector 4.5 $2,788 106 $ 295,528 Williston - VT 2A & James Brown Dr 3.3 $ 189 163 $ 30,807 Williston - VT 2A & Industrial Ave/ Mountain View Rd 2.6 $ 252 237 $ 59,724 Williston - US 2 & Trader Lane 2.6 $ 210 22 $ 4,620 Williston - VT 2A & I-89 Exit 12 3.0 $ 243 39 $ 9,477 Subtotal $ 626,501 20% Max. Reduction for TDM Measures (New Sidewalks, Bicycle Paths & Bus Shelters) - $ 125,300 Total $ 501,201 a Adjusted to include the 6% TDM credit. 10.0 Conclusions & Recommendations The O’Brien Home Farm is designed to be a mixed use residential/commercial planned unit development. Located in a transitional area, it links and complements other neighboring developments. We conclude, based on the analyses performed as part of this TIA, that the existing off-site highways and intersections in the immediate vicinity of this Project have sufficient capacity and safety. This Project will require major improvements, however, to Kimball Avenue both at its intersection with Kennedy Drive and extending eastward to the new I-C Lots Access Drive. Further distant, the traffic impacts of the O’Brien Home Farm Phase Two development will be mitigated by future City and State transportation improvement projects currently under development; towards which Finney Crossing will pay local and state transportation impact fees. P:\2019\19083 O'Brien\dwg\19083-1 Kimball Ave Improvements.dwg 3/15/2021 15:08:27 1 : 1 RaisedCrosswalk& RRFBPotential Future ConnectionLEGENDPrepared: 3/9/21RecFieldParkParkCommunityCenterDog ParkRe-alignedI/C RoadKe n n e d y D r i v e Kimball AvenueTilley DriveAdvisoryBicycle LanesRaisedCrosswalk& RRFBRaisedCrosswalk& RRFBNew SharedUse PathShared LaneMarkingsFuture StreetConnectionNew SharedUse PathNew Shared UsePath AlongRe-aligned I/C RoadExisting Shared Use PathProposed Shared Use PathPotential Bicycle ConnectionProposed Advisory Bicycle LaneProposed Shared Lane MarkingsChanges to Site PlanNew SharedUse PathGateway Feature(Transition from AdvisoryBike Lane to Shared LaneMarking)Shared LaneMarkingsOld Farm RoadAdvisory Bicycle Lanes P:\2019\19083 O'Brien\dwg\19083-1 Kimball Ave Improvements.dwg 3/15/2021 15:08:27 1 : 1 LIMIT OFEASTVIEWcLot 20 2.06 ac GRAVEL3ac3-8 33-9 Lot 322.92 ac Lot 314.80 ac 30-130-230-330-430-530-630-7 Lot 30 WETLAND #3Lot 241.37 ac716-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-1716-1816-1916-20 Lot 19Open Space1.51 ac Lot 111.2 ac31-1831-1931-2120-120-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1431-131-231-331-431-531-631-731-831-931-1031-1131-1220-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-2616-1516-1631-1331-1631-2431-1431-1531-1731-2231-2031-233 31-2520.0 ft198' = 9spaces 264' = 12spaces 20.0 ft 20.0 ft 20.0 ft 20.0 ft20.0 ft 374' = 17spaces 44' = 2spaces20.0 ft PRACTICE FIELD AND WINTER SKATING RINK OLD BARN POTENTIAL OUTDOOR EVENT SPACEOLD SILO REPURPOSED EVENT / PICNIC PAVILION SLEDDING HILL LOWER LAWN / GRADED LEVEL LANDFORMS FOR SCREENING AND WIND 18 PARKING SPACES 8’ WIDE ASPHALT REC PATH DROP OFF BENCHES 5’ WIDE ASPHALT PATH PERMEABLE LOT PERMEABLE PICNIC COURT SCALE: 1” = 30’ 03.19.21 EASTVIEW DEVELOPMENT | COMMUNITY PARK SCALE: 1” = 100’-0” 01.22.2021 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| OVERALL SITE PLAN| L100 SHEET L101 SHEET L200 SHEET L201 SHEET L202 SHEET L102 SHEET L103 MOWED PLAYING FIELD COMMON SPACE. LANDFORMS AND SCREENING WILDLIFE CONNECTION CORRIDOR WILDLIFE CONNECTION CORRIDOR 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 01.22.2021 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE PLAN L101 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 OLD FARM ROAD LEGACY FARM AVE MEADOW LOOP OPEN PLAY FIELD/POTENTIAL COURTS OLD BARN COMMUNITY GARDENS EVENT TENT PAVED WALK 5’ WIDE PAVED SURFACE. SPLIT RAIL FENCE EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN GRAVEL WETLAND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CIRCUIT TRAINING GRAVEL WETLAND EVENT LAWN 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 01.22.2021 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE PLAN L102 NEW PARK CURRENT OLD FARM ROAD ALIGNMENT LEGACY FARM AVENUEKIMBALL AVENUEO’BRIE N FAR M R OAD 5’ WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP. 10’ WIDE MULTI-USE PATH 10’ WIDE MULTI-USE PATH OL D F A R M R O A DMATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L103 STONE ENTRY WALLS SPECIAL PAVING GRAVEL WETLAND 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCULPTURAL LANDFORMS & NATURAL PLAY SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” 01.22.2021 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| DETAIL SITE L103 I / C R O A D 2 10’ WIDE MULTIUSE PATH 10’ WIDE MULTIUSE PATH KIMBALL AVENUEMATCHLINE SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L102 GRAVEL WETLAND GRAVEL WETLAND 5’ WIDE SOLID SURFACE PATH DOG PARK- 1 ACRE STORMWATER DETENTION EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN EXISTING WOODS TO REMAIN 179’317’ 7 MARBLE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| OPEN SPACE PARK L201SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”01.22.2021SCALE OF FEET 20020 40 GRAVEL WETLAND ADJUST ADA PARKING PATH PLAY LAWN NATURAL PLAY STRUCTURE BUILT INTO LANDFORM ORNAMENTAL GRASS STONE WALL SPECIAL PAVING@ PLAZA GRADE SIDES 4:1 SOUTH FACING BENCHES 5’ WIDE SOLID SURFACE PATH WOODLAND TO BE REMOVED IN FUTURE PHASES WOODLAND TO BE REMOVED IN FUTURE PHASES 7 MARBLE AVENUEBURLINGTON, VT 05401 SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”01.22.2021O’BRIEN HILLSIDE PHASE II| PLAYGROUND & FITNESS TRAIL L202SCALE OF FEET 20020 40 CIRCUIT TRAINING STATION - STONEDUST GRAVEL WETLAND SPLIT RAIL FENCE 5’ WIDE SOLID SURFACE PATH PLAY EQUIPMENT PARKING BIKE RACKS STONE WALLS DOG PARK 1 ACRE ENTRY GATES AND FENCING 317’7 MARBLE AVENUEBURLINGTON, VT 05401 Kennedy DriveHi n e s b u r g R o a d Eldredge Str e e t Hayes AvenueOld Farm RoadKim b a l l A v e n u e Will i s t o n R o a d HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-23 OPEN SPACE & RESIDENT AMENITIES PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com EASTVIEWO'Brien Farm RoadTwo Brothers DriveMeadow LoopLegacy Farm AvenueI/C RoadSUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LEGEND EASTVIEW OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE PHASE 1 OPEN SPACE Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 47 Open Space 12.64 ac Lot 48 Open Space 4.56 ac Lot 18 1.17 ac Lot 19 1.51 ac Lot 6 3.04 ac Lot 4 1.06 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Lot 32 2.92 ac RaisedCrosswalk& RRFBOld Farm RoadAdvisory Bicycle LanesPotential Future ConnectionLEGENDPrepared: 4/1/21RecFieldParkParkCommunityCenterDog ParkKe n n e d y D r i v e Kimball AvenueTilley DriveAdvisoryBicycle LanesRaisedCrosswalk& RRFBNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathExisting Shared Use PathBike Connectivity to Be DeterminedDuring Phase 1 Plat PermittingProposed Shared Use PathProposed Advisory Bicycle LaneProposed CrossingChanges to Site PlanNew SharedUse PathGateway Feature(Transition from AdvisoryBike Lane to Shared Use Path)Future StreetConnection(By Others)New SharedUse Path O'Brien Home Farm Subdivision Phase II Last Updated 4/06/2021 Proposed Development Plan R1 PRD Model Designation Number of Units Townhome 1 Car 8 Townhome 2 Car 40 Meadow Home 14 Village Green Home 34 Mountainview Home 16 Alley Home 14 3-Story Townhome 14 Cottage Homes 6 Total Homes 146 Existing Home To Remain 100 Old Farm Road 1 Development Density Acreage Units Per Acre Density R1 PRD 39.2 4 156.8 C1-LR 23.4 12 280.8 R-12 1.2 12 14.4 Total 452 Total Proposed Currently 146 Total Existing 1 Total Remaining in PUD 305 50' Wetland Setba c k Wetland A T y p e I I I 50 ' We t la nd S e tb a ck Wetland B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III Storm WaterDetention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com pcg 338.5 LIMIT OF EASTVIEW EASTVIEW EX. POND #1 EX. POND #2 EX. POND #3 WET POND A GRAVEL WETLAND #1 GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #3 GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Lot 1 8.9 ac Lot 2 5.0 ac Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 4 1.1 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 6 3.0 ac Lot 7 2.4 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 8 4.6 ac Lot 9 1.9 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 12 1.6 ac Lot 14 1.1 ac Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 acLot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 32 2.92 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 34 2.38 ac Lot 45 Open Space 12.64 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 38 3.06 ac Lot 39 3.91 ac Lot 44 3.96 ac Lot 46 Open Space 4.56 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 33 1.30 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-1516-1616-17 20-131-131-231-331-431-531-631-731-831-931-1031-1131-1231-1331-143 1 - 1 5 3 1 - 1 631-1731-1831-1931-2031-2131-2231-23 3 1 - 2 4 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 3 0 - 1 3 3 0 - 1 4 3 0 - 1 5 3 0 - 1 6 3 0 - 1 7 3 0 - 1 8 3 0 - 1 9 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 37-137-237-3 37-4 37-537-637-737-837-9 37-1037-1136-136-236-336-436-5 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 33-9 30-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 3 0 - 1 1 3 0 - 1 220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-263 0 - 2 0 3 0 - 2 1 Lot 36 1.55 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 34-8 34-9 34-10 Lot 40 3.42 ac Lot 41 3.95 ac Lot 42 3.51 ac Lot 43 2.90 ac Lot 35 1.77 ac 16-18 16-19 16-20 3 0 - 2 2 3 0 - 2 3 3 0 - 2 4 3 0 - 2 5 3 0 - 2 6 3 1 - 2 5 34-12 34-13 34-14 34-15 34-16 34-17 34-18 35-1 35-2 35-3 35-4 35-5 35-6 35-7 34-11 Storm Water Detention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: IC INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL LANDS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com EASTVIEW Approximate location of Tilley Drive Connection on City Map Lot 45 Open Space 12.64 ac Lot 38 3.06 ac Lot 39 3.91 ac Lot 44 3.96 ac Lot 46 Open Space 4.56 ac Archaeology Zone Lot 40 3.42 ac Lot 41 3.95 ac Lot 42 3.51 ac Lot 43 2.90 ac OFFICE/COMMERCIAL 42,000 sf up to 4 Stories 60 Potential Garage INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL 100,000 total sf INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL 50,000 total sf INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL 45,000 total sf INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL 120,000 total sf Archaeology Zone GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Storm Water Detention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: C1-LR COMMERCIAL-LIMITED RETAIL LANDS Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com EASTVIEW GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 ac Lot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 45 Open Space 12.64 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac GRAVEL WETLAND #9 Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Community TrailExtensionStorm WaterDetentionStorm WaterDetention.5 acresCommunity TrailConnectionKENNEDY D R I V E KIMBALL AVEStorm WaterDetentionBrothersDriveO'Brien Farm Road CommunityOpenSpace__ acquad liftentranceparkParkingPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferFrontage Buildout50% min. Kennedy50% min. KimballPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscapeFrontage Buildout30% min. KennedyFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimball50% min. Old FarmPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumFrontage Buildout50% min. Old Farm Road50% min. O'Brien Farm DriveFrontage Buildout50% min. Old Farm Road50% min. O'Brien Farm DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumPrimary Build to Line0' to 30' Maximum.Frontage Buildout50% min. O'Brien Farm DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball AvenueLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball AvenueLandscape Buffer20' min. Old Farm RoadFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimballno min. Old FarmFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimball30% min. Old FarmLandscape Buffer50' min. Kimball AvenueFrontage Buildout50% min. O'Brien Farm50% min. Old FarmPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowedParking Setback LineParking Setback LineParking Setback LineParking Setback LineGarage AccessAllowed on Old FarmLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball Ave1st Floor GarageAllowedLandscape Buffer20' min. Kennedy DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 40' Maximum fromLandscape BufferParking Setback LineThe drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) ©2021 BSB Design, Inc.HILLSIDE C1-LR LANDSouth Burlington, Vermont March 15, 2021Conceptual Layout Community TrailExtensionStorm WaterDetentionKENNEDYKIMBALLStorm WaterDetention.5 acresCommunity TrailConnectionKENNEDY DRIVE KIMBALL AVEStorm WaterDetentionPHASE ONEBrothersDriveO'Brien Farm Road CommunityOpenSpace__ acquad liftentranceparkParkingPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferFrontage Buildout50% min. Kennedy50% min. KimballPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscapeFrontage Buildout30% min. KennedyFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimball50% min. Old FarmPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumFrontage Buildout50% min. Old Farm Road50% min. O'Brien Farm DriveFrontage Buildout50% min. Old Farm Road50% min. O'Brien Farm DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 12' MaximumPrimary Build to Line0' to 30' Maximum.Frontage Buildout50% min. O'Brien Farm DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum fromLandscape BufferLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball AvenueLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball AvenueLandscape Buffer20' min. Old Farm RoadFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimballno min. Old FarmFrontage Buildout50% min. Kimball30% min. Old FarmLandscape Buffer50' min. Kimball AvenueFrontage Buildout50% min. O'Brien Farm50% min. Old FarmPrimary Build to Line0' to 12' Maximum1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowed1st Floor GarageAllowedParking Setback LineParking Setback LineParking Setback LineParking Setback LineGarage AccessAllowed on Old FarmLandscape Buffer20' min. Kimball Ave1st Floor GarageAllowedLandscape Buffer20' min. Kennedy DrivePrimary Build to Line0' to 40' Maximum fromLandscape BufferParking Setback LineThe drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) ©2021 BSB Design, Inc.HILLSIDE C1-LR LANDSouth Burlington, Vermont March 15, 2021Conceptual Layout Eastview Mixed Use Design Guide 6-Apr-21 Description Primary Building Façade Secondary Building Façade Additional Details Building Standards 1. Building Types a. All Buildings Allowed Under Zoning Regulations for District Permitted Permitted 2. Building Stories a. Principal 1, Min. 5, Max 1, Min. 5, Max b. Accessory Structure 2 Max 2 Max 3. Floor to Floor Height a. First Story 24' Max 24' Max b. Upper Stories 14' Max 14' Max 4. Build to Zone a. Primary Build to Zone Per Plan NA See Setback Plan b. Secondary Build to Zone NA NA See Setback Plan 5. Frontage Frontage Buildout, Primary Streets Per Plan Per Plan See Setback Plan Frontage Buildout, Secondary Streets Per Plan Per Plan See Setback Plan 6. Entrances Maximum Distance Between Public Entrances Non-Residential First Floor Use (Includes Parking Garage) 100 NA Waivable by Board at Site Plan Maximum Distance Between Operable Entrances Residential First Floor Use: Min. 2 Entrances Per Façade NA Waivable by Board at Site Plan 7. Glazing a. First Occupiable Story Min 40% of the width of the building and minimum of 7.5' in height for non- residential uses and 6' in height with a minimum window head height of 7.5' for residential. Min 20% of the width of the building and minimum of 7.5' in height for non-residential uses and 6' in height with a minimum window head height of 7.5' for residential. c. Upper Stories 30% of Façade Area Under Roofline 20% of Façade area 8. Building Breaks a. Building Horizontal Façade Min 3 every 80' Min 3 every 80'Waivable by Board at Site Plan b. Single span of Horizontal Façade without a Break 48' Max 48' Max Waivable by Board at Site Plan 9. Supplemental Building Standards a. Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules Encouraged Encouraged 10. Parking at Street Level a. Location Permitted Per Plan Permitted Per Plan See Specific Buildings Where Applicable on Setback Plan b. Glazing of Parking Story Min 15% of the width of the building and minimum of 7.5' in height for non- residential uses and 6' in height with a minimum window head height of 7.5' for residential. Min 15% of the width of the building and minimum of 7.5' in height for non-residential uses and 6' in height with a minimum window head height of 7.5' for residential. See Specific Buildings Where Applicable in Design Guide c. Screening of Garage Openings Required Required See Acceptable Screening Guide d. Garage Vehicular Access Prohibited Unless Noted on Setback Plan Allowed Allowed on Primary Façade only where noted in Project Specific Plans Blocks and Street Standards 1. Blocks As Approved in PUD As Approved in PUD Waivable by Board at Site Plan 2. Streets As Approved in PUD As Approved in PUD Waivable by Board at Site Plan 3. Curb Cuts As Aproved in PUD As Approved in PUD Waivable by Board at Site Plan Surface Parking Standards 1. Parking Requirements a. Per residential unit 2 Spaces Maximum 2 Spaces Maximum b. Commercial Uses As Required by Use As Required by Use 2. Location and Screening a. Setback Parking Line Parking Line See Plan Parking Line b. Screening Screening Landscape or Structure No Screening Required Supplemental Regulations 1. Upper Story Setbacks a. Second Story None Required None Required b. Third Story None Required None Required c. Fourth Story None Required None Required d. Fifth Story 12' Min. 12' Min Streetscape Standards 1. General Standards a. Non-hardscape, Pervious Areas Densely planted Densely Planted b. ROW Features and Plantings As Approved by Department of Public Works As Approved by Department of Public Works 2. Streetscape Requirements a. Benches Permitted Permitted b. Café Tables Permitted Permitted c. Bicycle Parking (Short Term)Permitted Permitted d. Street Tree Spaces, on Center 50' Max Average 50' Max Average 04.06.21 EASTVIEW AT O’BRIEN FARM | GARAGE SCREENING IMAGE SHEET PERFORATED METAL SCREENS METAL FABRIC GREEN SCREEN BUILDING MOUNTED GREEN SCREEN BUILDING FREE STANDING WOOD SCREEN 50' Wetland Setba c k Wetland A T y p e I I I 50 ' We t la nd S e tb a ck Wetland B T y p e I I I 50' WetlandSetbackWetland C Type III New E n d Sect i o nInv. 3 2 5 . 8 Newemer g e n c y spill w a y New E n d S e c t i o n Inv. 3 2 6 . 7 5 New O u t l e t Stru c t u r e B . See d e t a i l . New emer g e n c y spill w a y New O u t l e t Stru c t u r e C . See d e t a i l .NewstonebermNew E n d S e c t i o n Inv. 3 2 9 . 5 New r i p r a p splas h p a d Relo c a t e d C B # 6 8 A NE W R I M 3 4 6 . 8 Inv. i n 3 4 1 . 4 3 Inv. o u t 3 3 1 . 9 New 1 8 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 0 5 New r i p r a p dispe r s a l p a d Gra v e l W e t l a n d # 1 C e l l # 2 55' x 2 0 ' Elev . 3 2 6 . 5 Gra v e l W e t l a n d # 1 C e l l # 1 55' x 2 0 ' Ele v . 3 2 6 . 5 Gra v e l W e t l a n d # 2 C e l l # 2 121' x 3 2 ' Elev . 3 3 1 . 0 New C B Rim 3 3 0 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 2 6 . 9 7 Inv. o u t 3 2 6 . 8 7 New E n d Sect i o n Inv. 3 2 6 . 7 5 New C B Rim 3 3 2 . 0 Inv. i n 3 2 7 . 8 Inv. o u t 3 2 7 . 7 New C B Rim 3 3 3 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 2 8 . 2 2 Inv. o u t 3 2 8 . 1 2 New C B Rim 3 3 3 . 5 Inv. i n 3 2 8 . 5 Inv. o u t 3 2 8 . 4 New C B Rim 3 3 7 . 0 Inv. i n 3 3 2 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 2 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 4 3 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 9 . 2 New C B Rim 3 4 3 . 4 5 Inv. i n 3 3 8 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 3 8 . 8 New C B Rim 3 4 1 . 4 Inv. i n 3 3 6 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 6 . 5 5 New C B Rim 3 4 3 . 0 Inv. i n 3 3 8 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 3 8 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 4 3 . 3 5 Inv. i n 3 3 7 . 7 1 Inv. o u t 3 3 7 . 6 1 New C B Rim 3 4 5 . 0 Inv. i n 3 4 0 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 0 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 4 8 . 6 Inv. i n 3 4 4 . 3 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 4 . 2 5 New C B Rim 3 4 8 . 9 Inv. i n 3 4 4 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 4 . 5 5 New C B Rim 3 4 9 . 9 Inv. i n 3 4 4 . 4 9 Inv. o u t 3 4 4 . 3 9 New C B Rim 3 5 0 . 6 Inv. i n 3 4 5 . 8 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 5 . 6 5 New C B Rim 3 4 7 . 1 Inv. i n 3 4 2 . 5 4 Inv. o u t 3 4 2 . 4 4 New C B Rim 3 4 7 . 0 Inv. i n 3 4 2 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 2 . 1 5 New C BRim 3 5 5 . 2 Inv. o u t 3 5 0 . 4 5 New C B Rim 3 5 5 . 4 Inv. i n 3 5 0 . 1 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 0 . 0 5 New C B Rim 3 5 8 . 2 Inv. i n 3 5 3 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 3 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 5 8 . 2 IInv. o u t 3 5 3 . 4 5 New T r a s h / Rec y l c i n g New C B Rim 3 6 7 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 6 3 . 2 New C B Rim 3 6 7 . 7 5 Inv. i n 3 6 3 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 6 2 . 9 New C B Rim 3 7 1 . 4 Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 5 5 New C B Rim 3 7 1 . 3 Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 3 5 New C B Rim 3 7 5 . 2 Inv. i n 3 7 0 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 7 0 . 3 5 New C BRim 3 7 8 . 0 Inv. i n 3 7 3 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 7 3 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 7 8 . 1 IInv . o u t 3 7 3 . 4 5 New C B Rim 3 6 7 . 2 IInv. o u t 3 6 2 . 8 2 New C B Rim 3 6 8 . 4 Inv. i n 3 6 2 . 7 2 IInv. o u t 3 6 2 . 6 2 New C BRim 3 7 2 . 5 Inv. i n 3 6 7 . 7 5 IInv . o u t 3 6 7 . 6 5 New 1 8 " E n d Sect i o n Inv. 3 3 2 . 0 New r i p r a p disp e r s a l pad New C B Rim 3 4 2 . 0 Inv. i n 3 3 6 . 6 Inv. o u t 3 3 6 . 5 New C B Rim 3 4 2 . 9 Inv. i n 3 3 7 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 3 7 . 8 New C B Rim 3 4 8 . 0 Inv. i n 3 4 3 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 4 2 . 9 New C B Rim 3 4 8 . 1 Inv. i n 3 4 3 . 3 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 3 . 2 5 New 8" PV C S e w e r s=0.0066 New 8 " P V C S e w e r s=0.0 0 6 6 New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New 1 0 " PV C R o o f Drai n New 1 0 " PV C R o o f Drai n Ne w 1 0 " PVC R o o f Drai n New 1 0 " PVC R o o f Drai n Sno wStor a g e Sno wStor a g e Sno wStor a g e Sno wStor a g e SnowStor a g e New Trash/Recylcing New Trash/Recylcing Sno wStor a g e Sno wStor a g e Sno wStor a g e NewBikeRack NewBikeRac k New B i k e Rack NewStonereta i n i n g wall New s t o n e retai n i n g wall Gra v e l W e t l a n d # 2 C e l l # 1 121' x 3 2 ' Elev . 3 3 1 . 0 New c o n c r e t e retai n i n g wall New 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wate r s e r v i c e t o buil d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Phas e 1 s t u b . Coor d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wate r s e r v i c e s t o buil d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Pha s e 1 s t u b w i t h t e e and r e d u c e r . Coor d i a n t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wate r s e r v i c e s t o buil d i n g . C o n n e c t t o Phas e 1 s t u b w i t h t e e and r e d u c e r . Coo r d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New S M h Rim 3 4 2 . 4 Inv. i n 3 2 8 . 4 6 Inv. o u t 3 2 8 . 3 6 New 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Coor d i a n t e w i t h mech a n i c a l p l a n s . New 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to bu i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to P h a s e 1 s t u b . Coo r d i a n t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . Con v e r t 8 " P V C S D R 35 s a n i t a r y s e w e r insta l l e d i n P h a s e 1 t o build i n g s e r v i c e . Coo r d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to bu i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to Ph a s e 1 s t u b . Coo r d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sani t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to bu i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to Ph a s e 1 s t u b . Coo r d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New 8 " x 8 " x 8" t e e , t h r u s t bloc k . New6" D. I . wat e rserv i c e New 6 " D . I . wate r s e r v i c e New 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee, t h r u s t b l o c k . New 1 8 " HD P Es=0. 0 0 5 New 1 8 " HDP E New 1 8 " HD P Es=0. 0 0 5 New 18" HDPENew 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HD P E New 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 12 " H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12 " H D P E New 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " HD P E New 18" HDPENew 18" HDPENew 15"HDPE New 1 8 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E New12"New 18" HDPENe w 1 8 " H D P E New Trash/Recylcing New C B Rim 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 8 Inv. o u t 3 6 1 . 7 New C B Rim 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 6 2 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 6 1 . 9 New C B Rim 3 6 7 . 5 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 1 . 3 5 New C BRim 3 7 2 . 8 IInv . o u t 3 6 8 . 0 5 s=0. 0 7 2 s=0.0 2 3 New C B Rim 3 7 1Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 7 0 . 0 Inv. i n 3 6 5 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 5 . 1 5 New C BRim 3 7 4 . 5 Inv. i n 3 6 9 . 7 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 9 . 6 5 New C B Rim 3 7 5 . 1 5 Inv. o u t 3 7 0 . 4 New C B Rim 3 5 2 . 2 Inv. i n 3 4 7 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 7 . 3 5 New C B Rim 3 5 2 . 7 5 Inv. i n 3 4 8 . 2 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 1 New C B Rim 3 5 2 . 7 5 Inv. i n 3 4 8 . 4 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 3 New C B Rim 3 5 3 . 5 Inv. i n 3 4 8 . 7 5 Inv. o u t 3 4 8 . 6 5 New C B Rim 3 5 4 . 4 5 Inv. i n 3 4 9 . 7 Inv. o u t 3 4 9 . 6 New C B Rim 3 5 4 . 4 5 Inv. i n 3 4 9 . 7 Inv. o u t 3 4 9 . 6 New C BRim 3 5 5 . 1 Inv. i n 3 5 0 . 3 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 0 . 2 5 New C B Rim 3 6 1 . 0 Inv. o u t 3 5 6 . 2 5 New C B Rim 3 6 2 . 0 Inv. i n 3 5 7 . 2 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 7 . 1 5 New C B Rim 3 6 5 . 3 Inv. o u t 3 6 0 . 5 5 New C BRim 3 5 7 . 2 5 Inv. i n 3 5 2 . 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 2 . 4 New C B Rim 3 6 1 . 9 Inv. i n 3 5 6 . 4 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 6 . 3 5 New C B Rim 3 6 5 . 8 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 1 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 1 . 0 5 New C B Rim 3 6 1 . 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 6 . 7 5 New C B Rim 3 5 8 . 5 Inv. i n 3 5 3 . 7 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 3 . 6 5 New C B Rim 3 6 2 . 6 Inv. i n 3 5 7 . 8 5 Inv. o u t 3 5 7 . 7 5 New C B Rim 3 6 6 . 4 Inv. i n 3 6 1 . 6 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 1 . 5 5 New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New s t r e e t light ( t y p . ) New 1 0 " PV C R o o f Drai n New 1 0 " PVC R o o f Drai n New 1 0 " PVC R o o f Drai n New r i p r a p dispe r s a l p a d New E n d Sect i o n Inv. 3 3 2 . 0 SnowStor a g e Sno wStor a g e New M a i l Buil d i n g a n d Tras h / R e c y l c i n g Sno wStor a g e SnowStor a g e New C B Rim 3 7 2 . 8 Inv. i n 3 6 7 . 9 1 Inv. o u t 3 6 7 . 8 1 Inv. u d 3 6 8 . 6 6 New C B Rim 3 7 2 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 6 8 . 1 5 Inv. u d 3 6 8 . 9 N e w 1 5 " H D P E s = 0 . 0 2 1 Ne w 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 s=0 . 0 2 4 New B i k e Rac k New B i k e Rac k New B i k e Rac k New C B Rim 3 7 0 . 9 Inv. i n 3 6 6 . 1 5 Inv. o u t 3 6 6 . 0 5 Inv. u d 3 6 6 . 9 New C B Rim 3 7 0 . 9 Inv. i n 3 6 5 . 9 Inv. o u t 3 6 5 . 8 Inv. u d 3 6 6 . 6 5 New 6 " D . I . C l 5 2 wate r s e r v i c e t o build i n g . C o n n e c t t o Phas e 1 s t u b . Coo r d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New g a t e valv e , c a p , stub , t h r u s t bloc k , a n d witn e s s f o r 8 " wat e r m a i n . New Hyd r a n t asse m b l y New 8 " x 8 " x 8 " tee, t h r u s t b l o c k and g a t e v a l v e . New 8 " w a t e r stub w i t h c a p , trhu s t b l o c k a n d witn e s s New 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 sanit a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e to b u i l d i n g . C o n n e c t to Ph a s e 1 s t u b . Coor d i n a t e w i t h mec h a n i c a l p l a n s . New S M H Rim 3 7 4 . 2 0 Inv. i n 3 6 8 . 5 3 Inv. o u t 3 6 8 . 4 3New 12" HDPENew 15" HDPE Ne w 1 5 " H D P E N e w 1 5 " HD P E New 15" HDPENew 15" HDPE New 15" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" HDPENew 12" H D P E New 1 2 " H D P E New 1 2 " HDPENew 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " H D P E Ne w 1 5 " H D P E New 1 5 " HD P E New 15" HDPE New 1 5 " H D P ENew 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15" HDPENew 15"HDPENew 15"HDPE Storm WaterDetention HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: PH-1 OVERALL PHASING PLAN Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com Meadow Loop Phase 2 Open Space, Park, Amenities Phase 13 Relocated Old Farm Road Phase 9 O'Brien Farm Road extension to new Old Farm Road Phase 11 Existing Old Farm Road improvements & Village Green Phase 6 I/C Road Phase 15 Old Farm Road/Kimball Avenue Intersection Phase 14 Open Space amenities Phase 17 Legacy Farm Avenue, Mountainview, Village Green, & Northslope Phase 5 Parkway Homes and Mountainview Phase 3 I/C Road/Kimball Avenue intersection Phase 16 O'Brien Farm Road cul-de-sac & Northslope Phase 10 Barn Improvements Village Green Phase 7 Old Farm Gateway Phase 8 Open Space, Park, Amenities Phase 12 EASTVIEW LIMIT OF EASTVIEW EX. POND #1 EX. POND #2 EX. POND #3 WET POND A GRAVEL WETLAND #1 GRAVEL WETLAND #2 GRAVEL WETLAND #3 GRAVEL WETLAND #4 GRAVEL WETLAND #5 GRAVEL WETLAND #6 GRAVEL WETLAND #7 GRAVEL WETLAND #8 Lot 1 8.9 ac Lot 2 5.0 ac Lot 3 2.0 ac Lot 4 1.1 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 6 3.0 ac Lot 7 2.4 ac Lot 5 8.8 ac Lot 8 4.6 ac Lot 9 1.9 ac Lot 10 0.9 ac Lot 11 1.2 ac Lot 13 2.78 ac Lot 15 2.38 ac Lot 12 1.6 ac Lot 14 1.1 ac Lot 17 1.78 ac Lot 16 2.61 ac Lot 20 2.06 ac Lot 21 1.90 ac Lot 22 2.21 ac Lot 23 0.78 acLot 24 1.37 ac Lot 25 2.20 ac Lot 26 1.87 ac Lot 27 1.49 ac Lot 28 2.46 ac Lot 32 2.92 ac Lot 30 2.39 ac Lot 31 4.80 ac Lot 34 2.38 ac Lot 45 Open Space 12.64 ac Lot 29 0.73 ac Lot 38 3.06 ac Lot 39 3.91 ac Lot 44 3.96 ac Lot 46 Open Space 4.56 ac Business Park North Lot 4 2.4 ac Archaeology Zone Archaeology Zone Lot 33 1.30 ac Lot 37 3.54 ac Lot 18 Open Space 1.17 ac Lot 19 Open Space 1.51 ac 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 16-1516-1616-17 20-131-131-231-331-431-531-631-731-831-931-1031-1131-1231-1331-1431 - 1 5 3 1 - 1 631-1731-1831-1931-2031-2131-2231-23 3 1 - 2 4 30-1 30-5 30-7 30-9 3 0 - 1 3 3 0 - 1 4 3 0 - 1 5 3 0 - 1 6 3 0 - 1 7 3 0 - 1 8 3 0 - 1 9 33-1 33-3 33-6 33-7 37-137-237-3 37-4 37-537-637-737-837-9 37-1037-1136-136-236-336-436-5 33-2 33-4 33-5 33-8 33-9 30-2 30-3 30-4 30-6 30-8 30-10 3 0 - 1 1 3 0 - 1 220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-263 0 - 2 0 3 0 - 2 1 Lot 36 1.55 ac 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 34-6 34-7 34-8 34-9 34-10 Lot 40 3.42 ac Lot 41 3.95 ac Lot 42 3.51 ac Lot 43 2.90 ac Lot 35 1.77 ac 16-18 16-19 16-20 3 0 - 2 2 3 0 - 2 3 3 0 - 2 4 3 0 - 2 5 3 0 - 2 6 3 1 - 2 5 34-12 34-13 34-14 34-15 34-16 34-17 34-18 35-1 35-2 35-3 35-4 35-5 35-6 35-7 34-11 Soil Stockpile and Fill Area Phase 4 IC Roadway and Construction Staging Area Phase 1