Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_Eastview_presentationEastview* at O’Brien Farm Preliminary Plat Meeting #3 April 20, 2021 *Working name of the Project for Permitting Purposes. 2 3 Presentation Overview ●Presentation reviews staff report in order. ●Each numbered staff comment is discussed. ●A number of discussion points were not enumerated but are important and are also discussed here in order. ●Screenshots and excerpts from staff report are provided. Staff report text is BLACK and RED ●Applicant text is in BLUE ●Excerpts from City Reports and Applicant Narrative are labeled throughout but may appear in black text as well. ●Applicant has added emphasis to staff report comments with RED underline. 4 Applicant Waiver Requests •Text of Applicant request is below •Text of the Regulation 5 Applicant Waiver Requests Black line is approximate area where additional setback is required. Green is a planned large buffer and setback to IC area. 6 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant requests is below •This finding was granted in Phase I and simply allows the board the ability to let Applicant place future site plan landscape requirements elsewhere in the project (with Board approval) if the board determines that this is a benefit to the project. •There is no reduction in landscape requirements proposed. 7 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant request seeks to exempt beds and trees that are surrounding/touching the foundation of single family, duplex and triplex homes. •Applicant does not believe it is the City’s intent to enforce on homeowners forever replacing bushes in beds in their front and rear yards. •Gardening and personalizing ones individual flower beds is a public benefit, it is a health benefit and it is a community inspiring activity, which we hope to foster and not deter with this requirement that would prohibit homeowner modification. Regulation Text 8 Applicant Waiver Requests •This waiver was granted in Phase I •Applicant offers these options as additional purchases on most home models during the customization and purchase process. •The City had recommended this wavier in Phase I to allow for the easy addition of this common resident and homeowner request. To screen in or cover a deck on their home. •What is the process for a homeowner or the builder during construction if this waiver is not granted? 9 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant DID file a master plan, and in discussion with staff it was decided that it was not necessary 10 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant’s three specific requests summarized in this comment are as follows: •This waiver was granted in Phase I. •Staff has supported this waiver in amended comments for 4/20/21 hearing. 11 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant’s specific requests are as follows: •Applicant requests the ability for final plat review only, specifically for amendments and not for other items that may require a larger review. •This is to avoid the need for two public hearings and two applications, which come with significant time commitments on behalf of Applicant, the Board and Staff. •This process waiver was provided in Phase I and was used on a few occasions and for great benefit. •Staff comments did not address this particular item and Applicant is hoping to get feedback. 12 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant’s specific requests are as follows. •This process waiver was granted in Phase I. 13 Applicant Waiver Requests PUD Review Requirements 15.18A ●Sufficient Water and Wastewater Capacity ●Sufficient Grading and Erosion Control (Erosion control standards apply outside PUD) ●Suitable protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat under Article 12. ●Visually compatible with planned development patterns in the area as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. See Section 14.06(C)(1-2) ●Open space areas on the site have been located to maximize opportunities for open spaces between parcels. ●Layout reviewed by fire chief, street widths, vehicular access, hydrant locations etc. ●Roads, rec paths, stormwater, sidewalks, landscaping and utilities designed to be compatible with extension to adjacent properties. ●Roads, utilities sidewalks, rec paths are designed in a manner consistent with City utility and roadway plans. See Section 14.07(G) ●Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the district. (See Section 14.06(A) ●Project design incorporates strategies to minimize site disturbance …infiltrate rainfall. (See Section 14.07(F)) •The review criteria of a PUD are outlined below. All criteria have been addressed for all the lots proposed in this subdivision. •Criteria that are NOT also reviewed/required at Site Plan are shown below in red. 14 Applicant Waiver Requests PUD Review Requirements 15.18A •Applicant is happy to provide additional information to facilitate a discussion and conclusions on those elements that would not have future review under site plan only. •Applicant is making commitments for large amounts of City infrastructure that are significantly out of balance with only the homes proposed for construction. •These commitments are meant to satisfy the PUD review criteria, and to permit this waiver simplifying future review and solidifying the major project details to create a mutually agreed framework and facilitate the project. •Subjecting individual lots within this overall PUD to individual PUD review at each application will create uncertainty and potential for conflicts with the planned development proposed here. •It is counterintuitive to have mini PUD reviews for lots within an overall PUD. This is the PUD review. 15 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant’s specific requests are as follows. •Conceivably, on the interior of a block of lots designed, some parking required for one lot may overlap with another. •This would create a framework for shared parking interior to building frontages and avoid the need to move lot lines and complicate the permit process during site plan permitting. See next slide. 16 Example Layout Issue Parking serving red lot located on purple lot 17 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant is happy to work through these requests with Staff and present a proposal to the board at final plat. 18 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant is only requesting the time it feels is necessary to ensure that after a lengthy Act 250 process it is not in a position of having to start over with the City due to the expiration of this timeline. •This timeframe is provided for single structures on single lots as a standard. It makes sense for a project of a significant scale such as this to receive a longer time period to facilitate State permit approvals and to allow for changing market conditions or market challenges that might impede financing to start. 19 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant waiver request is below •The cul-de-sac is entirely within a residential district and we believe is allowed. •Applicant seeks a waiver (if needed) to allow for the landscaping of the center island, to accentuate it as a feature of the park area proposed. •If the Board likes this direction we can propose it as landscaped at final plat. The waiver is not necessary now. 20 Applicant Waiver Requests •Applicant waiver request is below 21 Low Impact Development Stormwater •Applicant has reviewed these issues with the stormwater department and the plan proposed is still workable. 22 Hillside Green Construction Practices •Please see Applicant response to NRCC roofing question below. •Applicant proposes a compromise that it hopes will be successful. •Applicant appreciates the direction but a permit requirement for this item is challenging. The roofing product is integral to the longevity and safety of the home, and we must be able to choose products based on performance, availability and desirability. •We must be able to provide color choices that allow for buyers to have coordinated and attractive exterior color palette. 23 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards •Applicant will incorporate these comments into the final plat. 24 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards •Applicant is glad that the sample layout provided met the intent of this regulation and will look forward to discussing the C1-LR area in more detail May 18th. 25 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards •Applicant can consolidate curb cuts and driveway access for these lots in line with the spirit of these comments and will propose those curb cut locations at final plat. 26 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards •Applicant will make this change to the plans as requested. 27 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards 28 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards 29 Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards 30 Proposed Phasing Plan 31 Inclusionary Housing Requirements 32 Inclusionary Housing Requirements 33 Inclusionary Housing Requirements •All homes will be built to the 2020 Stretch Energy Code. •If Efficiency VT program currently in place and utilized at Hillside is still offered, all homes will participate in that program. All base specifications of that program are included in every home. 34 Inclusionary Housing Requirements •All homes proposed have full unfinished basements. •Applicant is looking at the opportunity to provide for a fourth bedroom in the basement to meet the needs of larger families. •If not provided as a bedroom or finished space, basement spaces would be unfinished. 35 Inclusionary Housing Requirements •Applicant is building the road and homes in this phase first. The homes will be made available in that first phase and built when sold, like all homes in the development. 36 Construction of IC Road and Proposed Ledge Removal •Applicant is proposing removal in direct connection with construction on the same lot with the purpose of balancing site cuts and fills and material needs 37 Construction of IC Road and Proposed Ledge Removal •Applicant is proposing removal in direct connection with construction on the same lot. •Board findings of fact and decision in Permit SD-20-26 issued in 2020 confirm that all the land in the Project is one lot. •146 Homes are proposed to be built with the stone being removed, and 1.5 miles of new City roadways. All on the same lot where removal is proposed. 38 Construction of IC Road and Proposed Ledge Removal ●Applicant is happy to provide the board with all of the items requested and mentioned in the staff report. ●Applicant does not believe that Section 13.16 applies to the proposal at hand. ●Applicant suggests that this issue should be reviewed and decided at final plat when the requested information is provided as well as information on other required ledge removal for the project. If the Board finds the information acceptable, whether this section applies will be moot. 39 Construction of IC Road and Proposed Ledge Removal 40 Construction of IC Road and Proposed Ledge Removal 41 Project Phasing 42 Proposed Phasing Plan 43 Project Phasing Plan ●The Project is proposing many millions of dollars of infrastructure that will become City owned roads. ●This investment is supported by the for sale neighborhood proposed as well as the commercial and industrial lots proposed. ●Applicant has proposed a phasing plan that is financially viable and which completes roadway construction after homes in the area are sold and revenue is generated. ●Applicant is not able –nor should we be required –to invest in three phases that provide no revenue and no access to homes for sale as the first step in this project. 44 IC Roadway Layout ●The Applicant can provide one access for Lot 40 and 41. ●The Applicant is open to relocating the recreation path on the opposite side of the road, but would like to discuss the benefits and disadvantages. 45 IC Roadway Layout Tilley Drive Kimball Avenue 46 Road Cross Sections ●The Applicant will provide road cross sections prior to the 5/18 hearing. 47 Old Farm Road Shared Use Path ●The Applicant would like to provide again its feedback regarding the proposed recreation path impacts, which are much more than visual in nature. ●These impacts include the complete removal of screening, the removal of parking, landscaping, fencing and privacy for existing homes on Old Farm Road. ●These impacts include removal of stone walls, construction of retaining walls to hold back the rec path (or significant downslope fill onto properties). ●These impacts also include blasting of ledge and removal of mature trees, 20-30 feet from occupied homes existing for fifty plus years. 48 Old Farm Shared Use Path ●The Applicant understood board feedback related to providing safe off-street access to Tilley Drive for residents of Applicants project. ●Applicant has provided that access via a proposed shared use path shown at right. ●Project residents will have off-street pedestrian and bike access to Tilley drive, connecting to the existing recreation path in that area. ●Project residents have east west bike connection to the Existing Eldredge and Kennedy Drive Bike Path. 49 Old Farm Road Shared Use Path ●The Applicant provided direct shared use access to two major intersections in red. ●A third shared use path landing in the yellow area would provide no additional access to any use or curb cut that does not already have direct access provided by the Project. Old Farm Road Widening, Neighborhood Impacts ●The addition of the path requested would require clearing and widening of Old Farm Road in the existing neighborhood of at least 20’ to allow for work to be completed. ●The construction would also require blasting in the area of the red line, likely for most of the length as surface ledge is present in the area. 50 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 51 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 52 All trees to be removed if path required Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 53 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 54 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 55 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 56 Elevated ledge humps throughout proposed path location would require blasting or hammering for removal. Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 57 Surface ledge and significant slope. Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 58 Surface ledge and significant slope/humps in area needed to be flat for shared use path. Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 59 Surface ledge. Significant regrading needed that could extend impacts greatly, flat spot required for path between cone and road, down 3-5’ Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 60 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 61 Approx. 8-10’ Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 62 Approx. 8-10’ Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 63 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 64 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 65 Surface ledge. Significant regrading needed that could extend impacts greatly. Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 66 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 67 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 68 Approx. 8’ Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 69 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 70 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 71 Old Farm Neighborhood Impacts 72 ●The Applicant has provided connectivity to each of the proximate intersections on Hinesburg Road. ●Applicant has worked to provide this connectivity without the negative impacts of widening Old Farm Road for a shared use path. 73 Old Farm Road Parallel Parking ●The applicant has provided this sketch for feedback. If this amount of parking is in line with the amount the Board is looking for, we will include it in the project plan going forward. 74 Open Space Path and Use 75 Open Space Path and Use ●A retaining wall will be constructed at the edge of yards uphill from the open space, as it is required by grading. ●The trail network previously proposed has been rerouted to the bike path to avoid duplicative and parallel trails. ●Applicant made the east/west trail previously shown going straight up hill with stairs, a shared use path to facilitate east to west bike traffic. ●This required re-routing the path for grade concerns as shown, and reconfiguring unit locations to line everything up. ●Applicant felt it would better serve the wildlife corridor to pull the path out from the middle of it, in keeping with the promise to densely plant that area and allow it to regenerate as animal cover. 76 R1 and IC Connection Point OldNew Not Viable because of grade change Viable route and ROW a short distance away from requested ROW. 77 Barn Lot Improvements