HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-22-10_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_FP_MEMO_ffd
1
1 of 4
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-10 500 Old Farm Road Final Plat Application
DATE: November 15, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC 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 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family,
duplex, and three-family dwellings on eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen (18) commercial
development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500
Old Farm Road.
CONTEXT
The Board held hearings on this application on July 19, September 7, and October 6, 2022. Staff has
prepared a draft decision, attached. Included in the draft decision are a number of comments,
highlighted in the typical manner with red italics, which Staff considers are outstanding issues that need
to be resolved prior to closing the hearing. Some of these issues may be resolved during the November
15 hearing, but others may not.
Staff has excerpted the discussion of requested height waivers from the draft decision and included it
instead in this cover memo. Staff considers this to be a significant outstanding issue which was not
previously identified or highlighted for the Board, and recommends the Board discuss before review of
the decision and remaining comments therein.
In terms of packet materials, the applicant has prepared a full set of revised plans (excluding
architectural plans) and a number of supplemental documents. Staff has put the applicant’s table of
requested heights in the packet, then the plans, then the supplemental documents. If the Board
downloads the packet document as opposed to viewing it on the web, there should be bookmarks to
each of the included components.
COMMENTS
151 homes are proposed in the R1-PRD, and 4 homes are proposed in the C1-LR. Heights in both zoning
districts are limited to 28-ft for a pitched roof. The applicant has provided a table of proposed grade and
potential heights measured from proposed grade based on the available homes for each lot. The applicant
has requested an adjustment of average preconstruction grade as allowed under LDR 3.12.
3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade
A. Permit Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam,
topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards,
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
2
2 of 4
except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot,
shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board
may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval
of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the
removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16,
Earth Products.)
B. Standards and Conditions for Approval.
(1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance
with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of
Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the
submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing
the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by
removal or addition of material.
(2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it
deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time.
(b) 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.
(c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15
adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations.
(d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section
3.07, Height of Structures.
The existing grade differs from the proposed grade from -4.3 feet to +13.2 feet. Staff recommends the
Board discuss whether to accept the requested adjustment of preconstruction grade. If the Board
accepts this request, the applicant will require height waiver for 44 buildings (of 117 individual buildings
consisting of single family homes, duplexes, and three family homes), with a maximum height waiver of
5.65 ft.
If the Board declines to accept the request for adjusted preconstruction grade, 58 buildings (of 117) will
require height waiver, and the maximum height waiver is 18.2 feet.
Staff has prepared the following graphs which serve to supplement the plans, table provided by the
applicant, and above data. Each horizontal line on the graph represents the data for one building.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
3
3 of 4
In the above graphs, homes on Lots 38-1 and 38-2 have the highest proposed change in grade. The second
graph shows that many homes are proposed to be 36 to 38 ft above existing grade, and those same homes
are proposed to be around 33 ft above proposed grade.
Staff reminds the Board that the applicant on 10/6 requested a blanket height waiver to build what is
shown on the plans without being required to calculate height. The Board indicated on 10/6 that they
were not interested in providing a blanket waiver and directed the applicant to provide a specific waiver
request.
Prior to that date, Staff and the Board had believed that the applicant’s homes generally fit within the
height limit for the district and no adjustment of preconstruction grade nor height waiver would be
required.
Staff considers this revised height waiver request to be a significant change from previous expectations
and that the Board is in fact prohibited from granting it. 3.07 specifically states the following.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
4
4 of 4
3.07D. Waiver of Height Requirements
(1) Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, and
steeples for places of worship that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-
2 above may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the
provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses.
(2) R12, IA, PR, MU, C1-Air, C1-LR, AR, SW, IO, C2, Mixed IC, AIR, and AIR-IND Districts.
(a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the
limitations set forth in Table C-2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks
shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot.
(b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in
Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review
Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the
applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the
submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-
construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall
demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent
public roadways and other public rights-of-way.
1. Since the R1 zoning district is not listed as one of the allowable districts, Staff considers the Board
may not approve heights in excess of 28 ft relative to any adjusted grade (if approved) even in the
case of a PUD. Staff believes the majority of the height waiver requests are due to two
circumstances. First, the applicant has added 1-ft of “contingency” the requested heights. Second,
there is one unit type which is proposed to be 26.75 ft from finish floor to the midpoint of the roof,
which only allows a maximum foundation height of 1.25 ft before the maximum height is exceeded.
Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they will resolve the plan to meet the
required maximum height of 28-ft.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
1
1 of 38
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
O’BRIEN EASTVIEW, LLC – 500 OLD FARM ROAD
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-20-10
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC 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 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on
eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen (18) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and
25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on July 19, September 7, October 6, and November
15, 2022. ___ represented the applicant. Staff will draft a final list of applicants’ representatives after
the Board has closed the hearing.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and materials
contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes and
decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, O’Brien Eastview, LLC, is seeking final plat approval 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 155 homes in single family, duplex, and
three-family dwellings on eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen (18) commercial
development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces,
500 Old Farm Road.
2. The owners of record are O’Brien Family Limited Liability Company, Daniel and Sandra O’Brien,
and Stephanie O’Brien.
3. The application was received on June 10, 2022.
4. The tax parcel IDs for the subject property are 1260-0200F, 0970-00255.C, 0970-00255, 0980-
00055 and consists of 102 acres. The lots are split by Old Farm Road and by Kimball Ave, both
public streets.
5. The Board approved preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 for this project on August 31, 2021.
This final plat application is therefore subject to the regulations effective December 28, 2020.
6. The materials submitted consist of the following:
Staff will draft a submission list based on the final non-superseded materials after the
Board has closed the hearing.
7. The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD, and Mixed
Industrial-Commercial Zoning Districts. The project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 1
and 3 as well as the Transit Overlay District. The fraction of the project in each of the applicable
zoning districts, and the allowable coverage in each district, follows.
Zoning District Fraction of Project Area Allowable Lot Coverage
R1-PRD 38% 30%
C1-LR 23% 70%
#SD-22-10
2
2 of 38
R12 1% 60%
IC 38% 70%
8. The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the
standards of the applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses. The project is also required
to provide inclusionary housing. The project contains both Class II and Class III wetlands, though
only Class III wetlands and their buffers are proposed to be impacted.
9. The project is adjacent to the Hillside phase of the O’Brien development, referred to as MP1 and
Hillside herein. Hillside includes 490 homes, plus bonus inclusionary units, of which two
buildings containing approximately 81 units have as yet only received preliminary plat approval.
10. As noted in the project description, this proposed final plat consists of the following elements:
• 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings. These homes are centered
along Old Farm Road. This represents an increase of nine (9) units over what was approved
at preliminary plat
• eighteen (18) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres. This is 4.2 acres and one lot
fewer than was proposed at preliminary plat (with 4.2 acres having been re-assigned to the
residential portion of the project). These development lots are located in the C1-LR and I-C
zoning districts, which have different allowed uses but similar dimensional standards. No
development of these lots is proposed at this time, but the road network serving these lots
and a framework for development of the lots in the C1-LR, including connectivity to the
currently proposed residential phase, is presented for approval.
• 25.2 acres of spaces of undeveloped and recreational spaces, including spaces used for
stormwater treatment. Aside from their location, Staff proposes to discuss these spaces at a
later hearing date.
11. The applicant has received Planning Commission approval for road names used herein. Alleys
are not considered roads and no approval for the alley names has been granted.
12. Significant changes since preliminary plat include the following.
• Relocation of recreation path connection to Tilley Drive
• Removal of the resident club and replacement with a scaled-down community barn center
• Removal of a multi-family building on Lot 24 and replacement with four single family homes
and a stormwater pond due to a change in the stormwater design for the project.
• Removal of existing home at 100 Old Farm Road (Lot 36) and proposal for five homes set on
top of a 5-ft high retaining wall along Old Farm Road.
• Re-orientation of intersection, stormwater, and lot layout at the intersection of Old Farm
Road and O’Brien Farm Road
A) PHASING
The applicant has provided a phasing plan for the infrastructure, single, two and three family areas of
the project. At the direction of the Board, the phasing plan includes a specific trigger for completion of
non-residential phases such as roads and open spaces.
#SD-22-10
3
3 of 38
Internal non-residential phases include the following. The applicants trigger “at” or “by” the zoning
permit for a certain unit is unclear. Staff has modified the language to be more clear. Staff edits are
shown in red underline, with Staff comments as typical in numbered red italics.
Phase Description Schedule
Phase 1 IC Roadway and Construction Staging
Area
At start of construction. Not to commence prior to
the first zoning permit for the infrastructure or
home construction.
Phase 4 Soil Stockpile and Fill Area As needed to facilitate materials storage. Not to
commence prior to first zoning permit for
infrastructure or home construction.
Phase 7 Barn Improvements and Old Farm
Parallel Parking, Sidewalk in this
Phase
Barn lot amenity to be complete by prior to 125
unit zoning permit issuance.
1. During deliberation, some members believed
this phase should be complete prior to issuance
of the 100th zoning permit. Staff recommends
the Board discuss.
Phase 8 Relocated Old Farm Road,
Stormwater and Rec Path from Old
Farm Road to Kennedy Drive
Complete "curb to curb" at prior to unit 125 zoning
permit issuance. Elements of roadway outside of
curb may be reserved for construction with
adjacent buildings. Applicant will provide a
temporary rec path connection to Kimball Ave.
Opening of the roadway will be subject to formal
adoption by City. Provided the roadway is
complete as certified by Applicant and its engineer,
there shall be no delay in issuance of zoning
permits for failure to open the road due to the City
not adopting it, or delays in the city adoption
process.
2. Staff assumes the mentioned temporary rec
path is intended to be along the alignment of
the proposed road. Staff reviewed this proposal
with the Director of Public Works. The City
typically does not accept roads until they are
fully constructed including all approved
elements within the right-of-way. DPW and
Planning Staff will recommend to Council that
the City accept the roadway from curb-to-curb,
and simultaneously close and relinquish the
existing Old Farm Road, when its construction is
deemed complete, provided the applicant has
bonded for full construction of the roadway.
The portion of the bond representing the
unconstructed portion of the roadway would
not be released until such time as it was
constructed. The portion of the bond for the
#SD-22-10
4
4 of 38
driveable surface would be released at the
expiration of the warranty period.
3. Staff continues to recommend Phase 8 and
Phase 10 be combined into a single phase to
reduce permitting complexity on an already
incredibly complicated project.
Phase
10
O'Brien Farm Road Extension to Old
Farm Road
Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for
125 unit.
Phase
11
Open Space Park Amenity (Lot 47) Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for
125 unit.
4. The applicant has requested the fitness
elements of this phase be not installed until
Phase 16, which is tied to development of the
I/C lands. Staff recommends the Board discuss.
Phase
12
Open Space Park Amenity and
Playground (Lot 47) This is the phase
which includes the dog park.
Complete at prior to 50% projected PM Peak Hour
Trips for C1-LR Development area, as noted in
project TIA.
5. The Board directed the applicant to separate
Phase 11 and Phase 12 so there would be
additional open spaces developed prior to the
50% point in the C1-LR zone. Since this phase is
necessary for access to Phase 11, Staff
considers it should precede that phase and
recommends the Board direct the applicant to
reverse the triggers.
Phase
13
Old Farm Road and Kimball Avenue
Intersection Traffic Light
When warranted based on ongoing monitoring
described in the Board’s findings on 15.18A(3).
Phase
14
Potash Road Concurrent with first zoning permit for
development on the IC Lots, excluding the gravel
extraction and construction staging area.
Phase
15
Potash Road Kimball Avenue
Intersection Traffic Light
When warranted based on ongoing monitoring.
Phase
16
Open Space Amenity IC Trail Including
Fitness Stations in Phase 11.
Built concurrently and complete prior to the
certificate of occupancy for fourth principal
structure or the development which generates
more than 575 PM Peak Hour Trips in the IC Land,
roughly 50% of anticipated IC Development Trip
Ends, irrespective of C1-LR, R1 and R12
Development.
Phase
17
Old Farm Road Sidewalk to 116 Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for
125 unit.
#SD-22-10
5
5 of 38
6. During deliberation, some members believed
this phase should be complete prior to issuance
of the 100th zoning permit. Staff recommends
the Board discuss.
Phase
18
Kimball Ave. Rec Path Constructed simultaneous with Phase 12, or Phase
14, whichever is first.
Based on comments from the Director of Public Works, the Board finds if discharges of sediment and
nutrients are leaving the site then a new phase may not commence until the issues are corrected and
the site stabilized to the satisfaction of the Director of public works, or his designee”. Compliance with
the construction general permit shall be a condition of this approval.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
The following section addresses additional general (14.06) and specific (14.07) site plan review
standards.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds this criterion met.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure
to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking
areas.
(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.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
The Board has addressed each element of these and related criteria in detail below.
Transitions from Structure to Structure
Resident Club: The Board found at preliminary plat that additional details of the building and site
design were required at final plat, including the requirement to design the homes on Lot 33 to have
the appearance of fronts from both Mabel Way (formerly referred to as Legacy Farm Ave) and from
the sidewalk to the rear. The Board discouraged a heavy buffer in this area and instead noted the
landscaping should encourage the homes on Lot 33 to use Lot 32 as their neighborhood play area.
#SD-22-10
6
6 of 38
The applicant has provided fronts facing both Mabel Way and the sidewalk within the recreational
space for six of the nine homes. The landscaping has gaps to allow view of the homes. There are no
walkways between the homes and the open space area. The below screenshot is of the face of the
six homes that would face the park. The Board finds this condition to have been addressed.
Homes on Leo Lane: At the North end of Leo Lane (formerly known as Meadow Loop) the applicant
is proposing units in what approximates a “cottage court” configuration with rear loaded driveways.
What makes something a cottage court is a central common space that is clearly defined and made
inviting for use by the residents. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must refine
this design to provide a thoughtfully designed central common space, and demonstrate that the
architectural design of these homes is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The below
screenshot is the front of the cottage homes.
The applicant has reduced the number of homes from six to five, and has arranged the homes
around a central green with walkways leading to the front of each home. The Board finds
transitions in this area to be satisfactory.
Further, the Board found the applicant must provide a crosswalk from the cross-lot sidewalk south
of the cottage court to the sidewalk on Meadow Loop. The applicant has instead relocated the
sidewalk to be on the same side as the homes. The sidewalk was previously on the west side of Leo
Lane, requiring crossing of more driveways. As modified, there are fewer driveways to cross and the
#SD-22-10
7
7 of 38
sidewalk directly connects to two pedestrian access points to the adjacent Hillside development.
The Board approves the sidewalk as revised.
Homes on Mabel Way: At preliminary plat, of the available single family home types, SF-5 was the
only one which has a garage protruding past the front of the home. In order to promote
cohesiveness of the neighborhood, the Board required the applicant to modify the architecture to
reduce the prominence of the garage relative to the porch/home. The Board finds this condition to
have been addressed.
Adequacy of Planting
Plantings are reviewed in detail under 13.04 below. The Board’s preliminary plat findings required the
applicant to prioritize plantings in the manner recommended by the Natural Resources and
Conservation Committee (to support wildlife passage using a densely planted corridor populated with
native species) and this criterion while balancing the connectivity needs discussed elsewhere in this
decision.
The applicant has provided a number of plantings connecting the wetlands in the I/O zoning district to
the southern-most property line. The Board finds the comments of the NRCC to have been addressed
and planting to be adequate.
Safe pedestrian movement
The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee recommended at preliminary plat “the addition of park benches,
street trees, public art features, etc. along sidewalks and shared use paths.” Further, they offer that “the
committee is fine with the internal connectivity except as noted [pertaining to Old Farm Road]. This
assumes that all stairways include ramps for ADA uses, bicycles and strollers.”
The Board preliminary plat findings indicate that the applicant shall strive to include ADA compliant
ramps where stairs exist and shall include equitable access in all cases. The applicant has provided on
the landscaping plans a red hatch showing where paths meet ADA requirements; these areas are limited
due to the underlying topography of the site but provide alternatives to stairs where stairs are included.
The applicant is proposing to end the recreation path on Kimball Ave prior to the property line, citing
permitting costs for crossing a wetland. There is an existing path on Kimball Ave that begins
approximately 100 ft south of the project limit. City of South Burlington has performed a feasibility
study to connect the project area to the existing path. The Board finds the applicant shall modify their
plans to bend the end of the proposed segment of recreation path to the roadway to facilitate future
City construction of “quick build” alternatives identified in the feasibility study, and that the alignment
of the recreation path in this location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works
for consistency with the City’s current plan for connection prior to issuance of a zoning permit for its
construction.
Adequacy of parking areas
The applicant has slightly reduced non-driveway parking compared to preliminary plat. There are four
spaces at the dog park where there were previously proposed to be seven. The applicant indicated on
7/19 that the dog park committee was satisfied with the provided plan.
The Board finds the applicant shall modify the plans to provide a temporary gravel area suitable for
parking of at least four cars in the C1-LR district adjacent to the dog park, as overflow from the dog park
will likely occur in the C1-LR once it is constructed.
Connections/Transitions between Project and Hillside
#SD-22-10
8
8 of 38
As proposed, there is only one vehicular connection between the properties, located at the north end of
the development area, and two off-road sidewalk connections. Hillside contains 158 homes in the single
family, duplex and triplex development area to the south (Hillside Phase 1). Development in the
Industrial-Commercial zoning district could potentially result in 910,000 sf of commercial space. The
Board finds that on balance, the disadvantages of connecting the Eastview Development to Hillside at
the south end of the project outweighed the advantages at this time. Given the potential scale of the
commercial development in the I/C zoning district, additional connections between the project and
Hillside may be required in future phases of the PUD.
Connections/Transitions between Project and Tilley Drive area
The Official Map shows a north-south connection between approximate mid-point of Tilley Drive and
Kimball Ave, roughly where the applicant has shown the central walking path and open space area
between the proposed homes and the Industrial-Commercial Area. The Natural Resources and
Conservation Committee provided comments that the official map roadway is located in an area well
suited for wildlife connectivity. 24 V.S.A. § 4421 requires reservation of lands designated for roads on
the official map, but allows the Board to make minor changes to locations of roads at the time as the
parcel containing the future roadway is reviewed. LDR 15.12D(4) requires that roadways be constructed
to the property line if the DRB finds that a connection to the adjacent property may or could occur in the
future. In order to minimize impacts to natural resources, the applicant has proposed a feasible
connection between I/C Road and the Tilley Drive PUD in an alternative location to that shown on the
official map, which the Board finds to be acceptable.
Connections/Transitions between R1 and I/C zone:
The Official Map calls for an “appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O’Brien
farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an
immediately adjacent area.”
The applicant has testified there is a 10% average slope between the proposed Potash Road and Mabel
Way and therefore a vehicular connection is not feasible. Instead, they have proposed a pedestrian
connection only. They’ve also provided Barn Road as a stub off Mabel Way which can connect to the
Potash on the adjacent property at a more gentle slope if/when that parcel is developed. The Board
finds that on balance, the disadvantages of providing a vehicular connection the I/C zone to the R1 zone
outweigh the advantages at this time. The absence of a vehicular connection in this location places
more importance on the vehicular connection to the Tilley Drive PUD for both Potash Road and Barn
Road, and therefore the Board finds both roadways and associated infrastructure must be extended to
the property line. The applicant must revise the plans to extend Barn Road and associated
infrastructure to the property line.
The Board finds the pedestrian connection between Potash Road and Mabel Way must be constructed
as accessible to non-pedestrian non-motor vehicle traffic including bicycles and strollers, and shall be
provided with a visual break so as to obviate and make the path comfortable to use. The visual break
shall be maintained for the duration of the use.
C1-LR Zoning District
The applicant has requested approval for the subdivision of land and roadway design within the C1-LR
zoning district, as well as a number of waivers. In support of this request, they have provided a
proposed regulatory framework and a list of nine commitments, as well as a conceptual plan for
development of that area.
The purpose statement of the C1-Limited Retail district is as follows:
#SD-22-10
9
9 of 38
A. Purpose. A Commercial 1 with Limited Retail C1-LR District is hereby formed in order to
encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the city, to serve nearby
residential areas. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of
local residents and employees. Their location and design are intended to make them accessible both
by motorized vehicle and by foot, thereby somewhat reducing traffic volume in the immediate
vicinity. In these areas, businesses offering goods and services will be limited in allowed floor area
and use. Such regulations generally follow existing Commercial 1 District regulations. Any uses not
expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses.
The applicant has arranged their conceptual development such that the short facades of buildings are
along Old Farm Road, which results in the long axes of the buildings being at a single grade, and has
located parking along Kennedy and Kimball Ave. The Board is supportive of this configuration and is also
supportive of the residential transition areas and the unifying elements in each block (the plaza on the
west and the green corridor on the east).
Parking must be located to the side or rear of buildings except in limited circumstances, and this
criterion is not waivable. The applicant’s concept includes parking along Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave.
Given the topography of the site, the Board finds the applicant may apply LDR 14.06B(2)(c) on an
aggregate basis across the block defined by Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave, Old Farm Road, and O’Brien
Farm Road (the western C1-LR block), and separately across the block defined by Old Farm Road, Kimball
Ave, and O’Brien Farm Road extension, if the parking is at least 20-ft higher than the adjoining road
surface and generally level with the finish floor elevation of the adjoining buildings (with allowances for
grading for drainage) and the parking complies with LDR 14.06B(2)(c):
Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas
located to the side of the building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half the width of all
building(s) located at the building.
In future applications, the applicant will be subject to the LDRs applicable at the time of that application.
Under the now-current LDR, this standard is changed to require the total width of parking to be no
greater than the total width of buildings and civic spaces (increased from one half). It is the Board’s
intent that the amended version of 14.06B(2)(c) (as renumbered) be applied to future applications on a
block by block basis.
The applicant has proposed a “Mixed Use Design Guide,” consisting of a set of dimensional standards.
The Board finds the applicant shall modify the Mixed Use Design Guide in the following ways.
1. The applicant is proposing standards for primary and secondary facades, and has proposed to define
the primary façade as the façade facing the primary pedestrian way. The Board finds the primary
facades shall include those which face the central organizing features and those which face Old Farm
Road and O’Brien Farm Road. Several buildings will have multiple facades that should be considered
as primary facades. In the conceptual layout provided by the applicant, Kennedy Drive and Kimball
Ave would not be considered primary facades.
2. The C1-LR zoning district has a maximum of four stories, and the applicant has requested a waiver to
allow five stories, with underground parking not being considered a story even if it is fully exposed
on one side. The LDR defines a basement as a story when the finished surface of the floor above the
basement is more than four feet above the average pre-construction level of the adjoining ground
or more than twelve feet above the pre-construction ground level at any point. The Board finds the
LDR definition to be appropriate and does not approve the applicant’s request, though the applicant
may request a case by case waiver, which the Board intends to approve when the garage is
substantially below grade and would appear to a casual observer to not meet the definition of a
#SD-22-10
10
10 of 38
story. The Board finds the applicant must revise the Mixed Use Design Guide to remove the
statement that underground parking not be considered a story.
3. The applicant has listed a maximum of 5-stories in the design guide, but has indicated a maximum of
4 stories on the illustrative C1-LR concept.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the Mixed Use Design Guide to have a
maximum of 4-stories.
4. The applicant has requested reduced setbacks to 5-ft front and side yard and 10-ft rear
yard. However there is no maximum setback. The Board finds the applicant’s statement
that “The Project building and parking frontage deviates by no more the 25% from the
conceptual distances provided on any given side/street frontage at Exhibit 016.1.” shall be
modified to state “building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual
distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more than 25% of the
conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01.”
5. The applicant has proposed 2 surface spaces maximum for residential units, with parking
for commercial uses “as required by use.” The Board finds the applicant shall modify this
standard for commercial uses to be “as required by Land Development Regulations.”
The Board finds the modified “design guide,” consisting of a set of dimensional standards, shall apply to
future development of the sixteen (16) lots not currently proposed for development within the C1-LR
zoning district, provided development remains consistent with the following nine characteristics.
i. The Project provides a central pedestrian‐oriented streetscape to foster community
and create a sense of place within the C1‐LR development area. Design elements to
be of a similar aesthetic as outlined at Exhibit 015.
ii. The Project features a central design element (plaza) as a gathering space, designed
in the spirit of images provided at Exhibit 015.
iii. The Project focuses services, retail and commercial development on the northern
block, and residential, senior housing and hospitality development on the southern
blocks in large part, with limited exceptions.
iv. The Project provides a residential transition between the R1 and C1‐LR lands
that creates a desirable transition for the Eastview neighborhood.
v. The Project site layout, landscaping, and building architecture provide an urban,
pedestrian‐oriented design aesthetic in accordance with character imagery
submitted at Exhibit 015 and Exhibit 016.1
vi. Streetscape elements include a variety of different materials, brick, colored
concrete, asphalt paving, granite curbing, designed to create a sense of place with
examples illustrated at Exhibit 015 and 016.
vii. The Project will create landscape and hardscape connections to Kennedy Drive,
fostering a pedestrian connection with the existing neighborhoods to the north
and west.
viii. Project parking adjacent to Kennedy Drive will be heavily screened with dense
plantings.
ix. The Project building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual
distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more
1 This language is slightly augmented from the applicant’s suggested language to specify that site layout is an
integral component of the design aesthetic
#SD-22-10
11
11 of 38
than 25% of the conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01.
14.06B(2) Parking
The Board is prohibited by 15.02A(4) from granting waivers of this criterion even in the case of a PUD.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public
street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(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 only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirement of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ii) the parking area will serve a single or two-family home
Most of the parking falls under this exemption.
(iii) and (iv) Not applicable
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation
The Board finds that as configured, the Resident Club (open space Lot 32) to be principally for
public recreation and accepts the parking as proposed.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. 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.
Business Park North Lot 4: The preliminary plat finding was for the applicant to include an off-road
footpath across this lot for a future trail network. The purpose is to, over time, create a walking path
along the south side of Potash Brook and is shown on the City’s official map.
Due to designation of Lot 4 as a sensitive archaeological resource area, the applicant has removed
proposed development from this lot as a change from preliminary plat. The applicant has provide a 20-
ft easement in the location of the future trail as shown on the City’s official map. The Board finds since
no development is proposed, a simple easement is sufficient.
See additional findings pertaining to access under 14.06B(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Proposed utilities are underground. Old Farm Road is currently served by overhead utility lines. The
applicant is proposing to relocate the lines underground through the project area, but it does not appear
provision has been made for connecting to the existing home located at 200 Old Farm Road. The Board
#SD-22-10
12
12 of 38
finds the applicant must modify the plans to provide for connection of the existing home to the
relocated utility line.
The telecom cabinet on Lot 42 conflicts with the proposed driveway. The Board finds the applicant must
modify the plans to relocate the cabinet outside the right of way.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
No solid waste disposal areas are proposed.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
This criterion was not reviewed in detail at preliminary plat.
13.06A Purpose [excerpt]. Street tree planting shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision
or planned unit development. In evaluating landscaping, screening, and street tree plan
requirements, the Development Review Board shall promote the retention of existing trees while
encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
The applicant has provided street tree planting. The Board finds the applicant shall plant trees as
shown on the approved plans. Street tree locations may be modified provided they result in the same
general spacing and layout should homes be mirrored from what is shown on the plan.
13.06B. Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or
two-family dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review
Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including
ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are
permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach
stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board
shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe,
convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
The applicable parking areas are limited to those at the barn amenity and at the dog park.
(1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow
for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking
lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy
for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and
for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between
the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
Staff considers this criterion met. At the dog park amenity, the area where landscaping would be
located is not yet programmed (will be the perimeter of the C1-LR zoning district). There is an
area of existing trees proposed to be retained. The Board finds that additional plantings may be
required at the time of development in the C1-LR zoning district but it would be premature to
require them at this time due to the likelihood of the trees being disturbed due to anticipated
development on those lots.
#SD-22-10
13
13 of 38
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or
in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior
of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
Not applicable.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed
as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side,
and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are
encouraged.
Parking areas are proposed to be curbed. The Board finds this criterion met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff
or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed
a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
More than 5 trees are provided for the 17-space barn amenity therefore this criterion is met.
Fewer than 5 spaces are provided at the dog park therefore this criterion is met.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
Paring lot trees are proposed to be greater than 2 ½ inches. This criterion is met.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species
should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the
parking lot and the site.
Fewer than ten parking lot trees are proposed, therefore this criterion is not applicable.
However, the Board typically applies this criterion to entire sites, not just parking lots. The
Board finds this criterion to be met for the project as a whole.
(5) Planting islands – Not applicable
(6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential
for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
The applicant has not specified snow storage areas. However, the Board finds that since each
parking area is to serve an open space, snow storage is not an issue. Snow storage for the project
streets will be along the green strip between street and sidewalk, recreation path, or property
line, as applicable.
13.06C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping,
fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it
determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each
other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively
#SD-22-10
14
14 of 38
with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial,
industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use.
The applicant requested a waiver at preliminary plat related to the requirement to screen between
adjacent properties. They requested that screening between commercial and non-residential uses be
allowed to be on either the residential or the commercial lot. The Board accepted this waiver request,
but on more detailed review of this criterion, finds no waiver to be necessary as there is no
requirement as to which lot contain the screening.
Utility cabinets are required to be screened with evergreens, a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees
and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. The applicant has proposed screening for utility cabinets within the
residential area but has not shown screening of utility cabinets in the commercial and industrial areas.
The Board finds utility cabinet screening must be provided when development occurs on lots
containing or adjacent to approved utility cabinets.
13.06G. Landscaping Standards
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are
cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of
three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next
$250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over
$500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional
landscape designer.
The required minimum landscaping value is calculated based on the cost of buildings on shared lots.
Single family homes and duplexes on their own lots are not subject to minimum landscaping budget
requirements. The provided landscaping value excludes the value of street trees. The Board has
also excluded the value of foundation plantings for the homes from the landscaping value because
the applicant has requested that foundation plantings not be required to be retained for the
duration of the use. This is discussed below under landscaping maintenance.
The applicant has provided a computation of required minimum landscaping budget and provided
landscaping value. No homes on their own lot are proposed, and the computations correctly
exclude street trees. The applicant has also indicated that the value of proposed plantings outside
of the red line on the landscaping plan are excluded from the provided value. They do not intend to
install these plantings until such time as the development occurs in those areas. The areas outside
the red line include the dog park, the walking trail through the I/C zoning district, and the street
trees on Potash Road. This decision establishes phasing for the dog park. The landscaping in the dog
park is required as part of the construction of the dog park regardless of whether it contributes to
the required minimum landscaping budget.
The required minimum landscaping value for 155 homes with a building cost of $52,700,000 is
$534,500.
The applicant is proposing the following landscaping.
Trees $526,675.00
Tree Whips $5,950.00
Shrubs $146,710.00
#SD-22-10
15
15 of 38
Perennials & Grasses $22,233.00
Total $701,568.00
Required Minimum $534,500.00
The Board finds the required minimum landscaping to be met. The applicant has requested the
Board allow the excess landscaping expenditure to be applied as credit towards future phases, and
has also requested the landscaping be allowed to be provided anywhere within the PUD. The Board
finds the excess landscaping expenditure to be allowed as credit towards future phases of the
O’Brien Eastview project anywhere within the PUD, so long as required landscaping standards
including those pertaining to screening are met. In other words, the Board may permit landscaping
required for construction of a building to be installed in a park, but they are not required to if such
an approval would result in the building site being poorly landscaped. The applicant will be required
to demonstrate the requested amount of credit is available at the time of each application for which
they wish to use the credit. The Board made the following relevant finding at preliminary plat,
which the Board continues to hold as a finding of this final plat.
Landscaping design shall result in the following criteria being met.
• each lot must be adequately landscaped
• each lot must have a reasonably proportionate amount of open space, with adequate
landscaping
• the landscaping shall not be inconsistent with the development program approved by the
Board
8. Further pursuant to landscaping in the dog park, the applicant has proposed a wooded area to
remain, but has not identified specific trees or specific tree preservation measures which will be
employed. The wooded area to remain separates the entrance from the main portion of the dog
park. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to explain how the dog park will function with a
wooded area near the entrance.
9. The applicant has proposed additional wooded areas to remain on Lot 124 between the residential
area and the I/C zoning district. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to indicate limits
of tree clearing on the erosion prevention and sediment control plans. Without this information, the
location of the limit of work fence appears arbitrary and subject to relocation.
13.06I. Landscaping Maintenance
The applicant has requested that non tree and shrub vegetation around the buildings be allowed to
be modified by the occupants of the homes. The Board does not consider the individual building
landscaping to be necessary to create the type of development stipulated by the LDR and reviewed
by the Board and has accordingly not considered plantings around the homes to be part of the
required minimum landscaping budget. Therefore vegetation shown on sheet L301 Typical Unit
Planting Layouts and Guidelines may be altered at the discretion of the applicant or the occupants of
the homes.
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
#SD-22-10
16
16 of 38
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.
At preliminary plat the applicant provided a list of 25 requested waivers. Some of the applicant’s
requested waivers have been incorporated into this decision as applicable, while others were
determined to not be applicable at a previous stage of review. The remaining applicable waiver
requests are discussed below.
Setbacks: The applicant has requested the Board approve setbacks to that shown on the plans with a
minimum residential setback of 5-ft. The Board finds this to be a problematic proposal for three
reasons. First, the City does not recognize footprint lots. Second, the homes are depicted as being set
back 10-ft or more on the provided plans. Third, the applicant is proposing a range of home types be
allowed to be built on each lot and therefore limiting the applicant to what is shown will necessarily
limit their available offerings. Instead, the Board approves a front setback of 10-ft, with open porches or
decks less than 12-ft in depth allowed to encroach into the front setback up to 5-ft. Side and rear
setbacks may be 5-ft. For street-facing garages, there must be exactly or more than 20 ft between the
face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car without overhanging the traveled way, or that
the distance be less than one car length between the face of the garage and the street (ie a car could
not park in the driveway without being in the street). The Board further approves a front setback of 5-ft
for the following lots:
20-3 20-4
20-6 20-21
20-23 20-24
20-26
Heights: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement that building heights on commercial
lots be no more than one story higher than adjacent residential buildings. The Board approves this
waiver, with the condition that the approved Mixed Use Design Guide will be followed for development
of the applicable lots.
Porches: The applicant requests that all single family, duplex and three family homes may convert their
porches to covered porches with only the issuance of a zoning permit. Porches are generally considered
to be covered and constitute building footprint, while decks are uncovered and do not count as building
footprint, though they do count as lot coverage. The Board finds adding or replacing porch roofs and
creating screen porches does not require PUD amendment.
Process Waivers: 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. The LDRs reserve the authority to grant procedural waivers to
applications for master plan as described in 15.07D(2). As there is no master plan, this waiver request is
not appropriate and the Board denied the request at the preliminary plat level.
Staff considers that the applicant’s request is not necessarily for a waiver, but instead is for the Board to
establish a procedure for review of projects within the PUD. The Board finds, as part of this final plat
decision, that site plan review is allowed by right for single buildings on single lots. Under the LDR
applicable to this decision, all modifications of lot lines or applications involving multiple lots require
#SD-22-10
17
17 of 38
subdivision review, including sketch and preliminary plat. However, since there is no vesting, any future
amendments to the PUD would be reviewed under the PUD in effect at the time of application. The
latest LDR has a process by which subdivision amendments (of which PUD amendments are a subset)
are categorized as minor or major, which would apply to future applications within this PUD.
Parking: The applicant made the following request:
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.
The applicant explained they are asking to be allowed to permit shared parking on an adjacent lot when
no other development is proposed on that lot. The Board notes such a configuration would not be
allowed with individual site plans such as requested in waiver requests 18-20. The Board finds this to be
allowed if the following additional criteria are met:
• Parking must be to the sides and rear of existing or proposed buildings; and,
• Parking without a building shall be allowed for three (3) years without a development proposal,
otherwise the applicant shall be required to install buffering. A buffering plan shall be
submitted at the time of application for parking on a lot not otherwise proposed to be
developed, and bonding for the proposed buffer shall be provided in accordance with 15.15 at
the time of zoning permit issuance for construction of the parking.
Sureties: LDR 15.15A requires provision of a surety for the full cost of public infrastructure, including
street trees. This waiver request pertains to bonding requirements. LDR 15.15B requires provision of a
surety for a portion of the cost of required landscaping. The LDR does not require DRB review of the
structure of bonding, therefore the Boards findings are limited. Specifically, the Board finds the
applicant may obtain a separate zoning permit for site preparation for each of the approved phases of
the development that require significant regrading. The surety for such site preparation shall be the
cost of site restoration, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, and not the cost
of full project completion of that phase. Should the applicant avail themselves of this option, they must
later increase the surety value at such time as they seek zoning permit approval for construction of that
phase.
I/C Zoning District: the applicant requests waiver of the requirement that construction in the IC zoning
district have common elements with the remainder of the PUD.
The specific standards are as follows.
14.06B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
(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.
14.06C Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
#SD-22-10
18
18 of 38
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
The applicant noted that the approved uses in the I/C cover a broad range, and therefore the
function of the buildings may not lend themselves to matching residential structure. The Board
notes this criterion does not require industrial buildings to look like single family homes, but to
prevent the industrial buildings from being disharmonious with the residential buildings. The Board
found at preliminary plat that there are a number of ways to meet these criteria. The presence of
an intervening open space and roadway reduces the needed reliance on architectural similarity.
Common elements can be complimentary without needing to be exactly the same. The site design
should also support complimentary relationships. The Board denied the requested waiver at the
preliminary plat stage of review. The applicant at this final plat stage of review is requesting more
robust findings. The Board finds the preliminary plat finding to be sufficiently descriptive to
establish the expectations for how these criteria will be met, and, in addition, since development on
the lands within the I/C zoning district is not proposed at this time, they will be subject to the LDR in
effect at the time of application. The currently effective LDR significant modifies and explains these
criteria.
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 comments on the 10/26/2022 plans on 11/4/2022.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Eastview” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing
Consulting Engineers, dated 4/1/22 and last updated on 10/21/2022. We would like to offer the
following comments:
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
2. The applicant should be aware that the existing City ordinance places restrictions on the City’s
ability to accept stormwater treatment infrastructure that serves commercial property.
3. The landscaping plan should not include any plantings within the stone of the emergency
spillway. Additionally, remove any trees within the footprint of the gravel wetlands.
4. Sheet L-119: It appears that there is a tree in the reinforced maintenance access, which should
be removed.
5. Back flow prevents are recommended for all footing drains that connect to drainage
infrastructure that is proposed for public acceptance.
6. The applicant should ensure that pervious pavers are appropriately protected during
construction so that their ability to infiltrate is protected.
7. Provide a detail for the “stabilized grass maintenance drive” indicated in various places
throughout the plans.
8. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
#SD-22-10
19
19 of 38
The Board finds the applicant must modify the plans to address comments 3, 4, and 7 as a condition of
approval. The other comments are incorporated as ongoing conditions.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 11/3/2022 and offers the following additional
comments pertaining to stormwater.
1. Existing City ordinance does not allow the stormwater utility to accept maintenance
responsibility for stormwater treatment practices that receive runoff form non-residential
properties. In the future, these properties may seek State coverage under the City’s MS4
permit, but maintenance remains the responsibility of the property owner(s).
2. It is recommended that all homes with footing / foundation drains connected to proposed
future public infrastructure have back flow preventers installed.
3. Landscaping should not show trees / shrubs over emergency overflows (e.g. L203, L204, etc).
Landscaping must be installed such that maintenance access routes are open and free of
plantings.
4. C-6.1 – Ensure that pervious pavers are appropriately protected during construction so that
their ability to infiltrate is protected.
5. C-7 – Are the plans missing a piece of pipe between the storm drain with rim at 353 and the
storm drain with rim at 337.71? Labels are visible, but no pipe line is shown. Is the piece of
pipe between the storm drains with rim at 353 new or existing? Provide pipe material and
size. Replace if existing. Same comment for pipe between CBs with rim at 337.71.
6. Many of the proposed stormwater treatment practices do not have emergency spillways.
Where will water flow if the outlet pipes clog or fail?
7. C-20 – Include a summary table by sub-catchment with basic information about the drainage
area (e.g. drainage area size, proposed impervious surface, and any other relevant info). This
will prevent reviewers from having to refer to modeling to obtain this information.
8. Is there a detail for the “stabilized grass maintenance drive” indicated in various places
throughout the plans?
The Board finds the applicant shall address comments 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as a condition of approval. The
other comments are incorporated as ongoing conditions.
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
C) 15.18A 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
#SD-22-10
20
20 of 38
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the proposed 155 homes.
The Board finds that no allocation for the commercial lots is necessary at this time.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the plans on October 29, 2022.
I have reviewed the proposed project Site and Utility plans relative to water infrastructure and
developed the following comments. Given the size of this project and the site-specific comments,
I plan to meet with the engineer to address these comments directly.
All Sheets:
1. Curb stops must not be placed in driveways or sidewalks.
2. All gate valves located at tee’s shall be anchored to the tees in accordance with the CWD
Specifications.
3. Transitioning from one pipe material to another must occur at a gate valve.
4. In-Line valves should be placed approximately 500’ from nearest valves.
5. All sheets need better identification of water main sizes and materials.
6. See CWD Specifications for pipe bedding requirements and include in the project details.
Sheet: C-2:
1. The water line from Split Rock Ct. to Leo Lane will require a City ROW or easement if not
already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location.
Sheet C-3:
1. The water line from Leo Lane to Old Farm Road will require a City ROW or easement if
not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location.
Sheet C-4
1. The water line from the stub to Leo Lane will require a City ROW or easement if not
already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location.
2. Mabel Way-Is there a reason for the in-line valve location being located here? Transition
of pipe materials?
Sheet C-4
1. Add one gate valve at O’Brien Farm Road-Old Farm Road intersection for a total of five
or move one valve from the “O’Brien Farm Rd east side. Discuss with engineer.
Sheet C-6
1. The water line outside of the city street ROW will require a City ROW or easement if not
already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location.
Sheet C-7
1. Instead of tapping the main at Kimball Ave, a cut in tee with three (3) valves is preferred.
Sheet C-10
1. Add one gate valve at the Marble Way-Old Farm Road intersection.
2. Add an in-line valve near the dead-end street, or anchor to one side of the proposed tee.
Discuss with engineer.
#SD-22-10
21
21 of 38
Sheet C-11
1. Add one more gate valve at tee.
2. Install temporary blow-off at end of dead-end line. Move hydrant to intersection.
Sheet C-12
1. Install in-line valve on Mabel Way near Sta 6+00. Discuss with engineer.
Sheet C-14
1. Secure all valves to the anchor tee.
2. The water line outside of the city street ROW will require a City ROW or easement if not
already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location.
Sheet C-15
1. Move gate valve and reducer to 45-degree bends.
2. Transition pipe material at the gate valve.
Sheet C-16
1. Instead of tapping the main at Kimball Ave, a cut in tee with three (3) valves is preferred.
2. Install an in-line valve approximately 500’ from nearest valves, or at 8” tee. Discuss with
engineer.
Sheet C-17
1. Install in-line valve near station 10+00. Discuss with engineer.
Sheet C-18
1. Future line to Tilley Drive?
2. Install in-line valve near station 12+00. Discuss with engineer.
Sheet D-3
1. Fire service mains should be Ductile Iron pipe.
Sheet D-4
1. Separate box for PVC tracer wire. Tracer wire is not permitted to come up in gate valve
box. See CWD Specifications.
2. #5: Nuts and bolts are to be Cor-Blue (or approved equal). See CWD Specifications.
3. Add PVC Pipe Specification language from CWD Specifications.
The applicant indicated to the South Burlington Water Director that they are able to incorporate the
comments of the South Burlington Water Department into the plans. The Board finds the applicant
shall make the necessary edits.
(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
#SD-22-10
22
22 of 38
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The project will be covered by an Individual Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit (IND-C) issued
by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The Board finds the applicant must
comply with the standards of LDR Article 16 where the LDR standards more restrictive than those
included in the INDC.
(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 Board finds the applicant must complete the installation of improvements on Kimball Ave,
including provision of infrastructure bonding, prior to trip generation exceeding the signal
warrant.
There are currently bike lanes on Kimball Ave, which will be removed when the turn lanes are
installed. The Board finds the approved shared use path on Kimball Ave must be complete prior
to construction of intersection improvements including turn lane installation.
Traffic Study: The Board finds the traffic evaluation shall be updated concurrently with the first
application for development in the C1-LR or IC zoning district and again with the application occurring
after each subsequent five-year interval if the commercial development varies from the uses included
in this initial traffic study. Notwithstanding development, an updated traffic study shall be prepared
after 10 years.
Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road: The Board at preliminary plat required the applicant to
provide an executable plan for a signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road. The applicant has
provided a plan that shows a full signal. The Board finds the applicant shall install conduit sleeve as
shown on the provided plan at the time the intersection is constructed. The applicant’s traffic study
concludes no signal at this intersection is required, therefore Staff considers installation of conduit
sleeve should be the limit of the applicant’s obligation for this intersection.
Traffic Overlay District: The north end of Old Farm Road presently is in the Traffic Overlay District
Zone 1. The applicant may not generate more than 15 vehicle trips per PM peak hour per 40,000 sf
of development area at the Old Farm intersection without access management, additional
connections between properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access that produces “a
net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project” (LDR 10.02H(1)). This
calculation allows for a trip budget of 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips. The current traffic study
demonstrates the development build-out projections are consistent with the traffic overlay district.
Updated traffic studies should confirm the development remains in compliance with the traffic
overlay district at each subsequent phase of development. Should applicant develop a program that
generates more than 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips, they may at a future application provide a
quantifiable demonstration of the increased capacity due to the relocation of Old Farm Road and
installation of a signal at the Old Farm Road/Kimball Road intersection.
#SD-22-10
23
23 of 38
(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.
The applicant has updated their plans to show wetlands and wetland buffers.
The applicant has updated their wetland delineation since preliminary plat and has identified an
additional Class III wetland within the IC area. The applicant is proposing to impact three Class III
wetlands and their buffers for the purpose of stormwater treatment. The applicant has submitted a
field delineation and wetland report as required by the LDR.
(5) 12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
No encroachment into Class II wetlands is proposed.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion
control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
The applicant is proposing 13,762 sf of Class III wetland impact, 2,772 sf of Class II wetland buffer
impact, and 82,634 sf of Class III wetland buffer impact.
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values
identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate
landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
The impacted wetlands were found to have low function as water storage and surface and
groundwater protection/nutrient removal. The proposed impacts are for the purpose of stormwater
treatment, therefore the Board finds these criteria met.
(6) 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(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above.
(7) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas
The applicant is proposing 18.24 acres of active or passive recreation space plus an additional 6.96
acres of undeveloped lots not proposed for use because of encumbrance with wetlands or
#SD-22-10
24
24 of 38
archaeologically sensitive sites. Other wetland and archaeological sites exist throughout the
development and are distributed between the residential, commercial, and recreational lots. Some
of the areas proposed to be left open are at the perimeter of the site adjacent to natural resource
areas. The Board finds this criterion met.
The following recreational spaces have been proposed.
Location Applicant Proposal Board Finding
Lot 18 Open Space public ownership The City will consider
accepting ownership of this
parcel one year after
substantial completion as long
as it meets City standards.
Lot 19 Natural Play Area public ownership The City will consider accepting
ownership of this parcel one
year after substantial
completion as long as it meets
City standards.
Lot 47 Dog Park, Play Area &
Open Space
Public Ownership The City will consider accepting
ownership of this parcel upon
substantial completion of all
components and as long as it
meets City standards.
Workout Loop on Lots 44, 46,
48
Public access and maintenance
agreement
The City will consider accepting
an easement for the trail one
year after substantial
completion.
Barn and Community Space Public access and maintenance
agreement
Same as proposed
The Director of Public Works provided the following comments pertaining to open space areas on
11/3/2022.
• L206 - Confirm that the dog park “entry area” will be ADA accessible. Consider adding
stonedust into the main park areas so that these locations are also ADA accessible. Can
stonedust paths be added from entry to areas where benches are included in the park to
expand the ADA accessible areas?
• Specify the material under the exercise stations on the circuit training trail. My assumption is
that these stations will have mulch beneath them.
• The applicant should provide a concrete walk to the dog park instead of a partially concrete
and partially gravel path.
The entry area is indicated on the landscaping plans as ADA accessible. The Board finds the applicant
shall comply with the other comments of the Director of Public Works as conditions of approval.
(8) 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
#SD-22-10
25
25 of 38
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.
The Fire Marshal reviewed the plans on November 4, 2022 and offered the following comments
(paraphrased by Staff).
• The 20-ft road width is problematic for emergency vehicle passage since emergency vehicles
and delivery vehicles are both 10-ft wide.
o Eastview Lane should be signed “NO DELIVERY TRUCKS”, or similar wording compliant
with MUTCD standards.
o The Fire Marshal suggested as a potential solution that the applicant consider a
centralized package delivery center, which would be a secure and weather proof
location for residents to receive their packages. This would significantly reduce
delivery vehicle presence on streets.
10. Staff spoke with the applicant, who did not feel this was the optimal solution. Staff
understands the applicant is meeting with the Fire Marshall with the intention of
developing a mutually agreeable solution and recommends the Board ask the
applicant to present their solution at the hearing.
• No parking signage shall be installed on both sides of the streets with appropriate signage
indicating parking to be allowed where marked. There shall be at least 4 signs facing each
direction on Mabel Way, 3 on Leo Lane, and at least one on each of the remaining 20-ft wide
streets.
• Mountable curbs shall be installed on corners as requested by Fire Department.
• A 10-ft clear zone shall be established free of all vertical obstructions on each corner
The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Fire Marshal as conditions of
approval.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
The Deputy Director of Capital Projects reviewed the plans on 11/2/2022 and offers the following
comments.
General Comments
• Add pedestrian push button symbol to legend (all signal sheets)
• Please change “new bike path” to “new shared use path” (all sheets)
Exhibit 099
#SD-22-10
26
26 of 38
• Since the driveway approach will become signalized and include pedestrian signals,
detectable warning surfaces should be added before the crossing on both sides of the
driveway.
• Relocate westbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to ~50’ before stop bar
• Add eastbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign ~50’ before stop bar
Exhibit 100
• Relocate westbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to at ~50’ before stop bar
• Add eastbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to ~50’ before stop bar
Exhibit 106
• Pavement markings on Old Farm Road and Potash Road are shifted right on the page.
Just looks like they were moved by accident, but please fix.
• What is the pink line across the current Old Farm Road alignment?
• Relocate Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) signs to ~50’ before stop bar
Exhibit 107
• Typo in “Handicap parking sign” legend entry
• What is the crosshair type symbol above the “Old Farm Road” label on the lower figure?
• Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road
Exhibit 108
• Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road
Exhibit 109
• Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road
• Black outline on the sidewalk between the speed hump and Daniel Drive is missing
• Please add gravel path hatch to legend
• Please maintain width of the first driveway off O’Brien Farm Ext. (lower figure). Current
configuration may encourage people to drive on the adjacent sidewalk
Exhibit 110
• It is unclear what is happening with the pavement and driveways on Eastview Lane
(lower figure). Are those driveway aprons but unpaved driveways? Also, what is the
hatch in this location representing?
• Please add gravel path hatch to legend
Exhibit 127
• Can a crosswalk across Two Brothers Drive be added at Ledge Way?
Regarding the first comments on Exhibit 110, this refers to the permeable pavers for overflow
parking for the homes backing on Eastview Lane. The applicant shall add this to a legend.
#SD-22-10
27
27 of 38
Otherwise the Board finds the applicant must address the comments of the Deputy Director of
Capital Projects as conditions of approval.
The Director of Public Works provided the following comments pertaining to these criteria on
11/3/2022.
• The applicant is reminded that any work in the existing Old Farm Road or Kimball Avenue
ROW will require a ROW access permit from the South Burlington DPW.
• Record drawings shall be prepared for any infrastructure proposed for City acceptance.
• All traffic signal equipment shall meet DPW specifications.
• It would be helpful if plan sheets had matchlines or indicated the adjacent sheet number, so
it was easy to follow piping and other features across the many sheets that make up the plan
set.
• C-18 – Potash Road will need an appropriate plow truck turnaround. This turn around can be
discontinued at such time as the road is extended.
• C-19 – Confirm that existing speed hump on Old Farm Road will remain in place. Ensure that
water does not pond up behind the speed hump.
Street segments:
As noted above, Barn Road must be extended to the property line. The Director of Public Works had
requested a turn-around in this location, but has accepted the suggestion that the extension beyond
Daniel Drive be used as a turn around. The extreme end of Barn Road will not be plowed until such
future time as it is connected to the adjacent parcel since it does not serve as access.
The cul-de-sac should be signed for No Parking as it is designed to be the minimum size necessary
for vehicular circulation.
Curb cuts:
Curb cuts on the approved plans are the approved curb cuts, and additional curb cuts shall not be
permitted without a PUD amendment. In other words, modifications to curb cuts shall not be
allowed to be reviewed as part of site plan review for individual lot development except for
individual homes curb cuts may be slightly modified to allow homes to be mirrored from what is
shown on the approved plans. Additionally, there shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side
of Old Farm Road between Kimball Ave and O’Brien Farm Road. No additional curb cuts beyond that
for I/C Road, and those needed for infrastructure maintenance, onto Kennedy Drive or Kimball
Avenue shall be permitted.
Sidewalks and Recreation Paths:
The Board required recreation paths to be 10-ft wide, though left room for the applicant discuss
site-specific exceptions with the Board at final plat. The applicant has proposed for the recreation
path to be 8-ft wide through the core of the development where the triplexes are located. The
Board has reviewed and accepted the bike and pedestrian design.
The fitness trail is outlined by a dashed line on either side, with a different shading indicated inside
the dashed lines on the landscape plans. The applicant indicates this is the cleared area. The Board
finds the applicant must modify the plans to clarify this.
The applicant has indicated surface materials for pedestrian materials are called out in the
pedestrian report. Some materials are called out on landscaping plans, but not on the civil
#SD-22-10
28
28 of 38
drawings. Materials should be called out on the plans since the plans represent the approved
condition for the project. The Board finds the applicant must correct the plans to provide this
information.
15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways:
The Board finds that all roads with the exception of the proposed alleys on Lots 18, 24, and 36,
and the access between lots 41 and 42 in the I/C area are required to be offered for public
dedication.
This section was reviewed under Preliminary Plat as part of 14.06 General Site Plan Review
Standards. It is equally applicable under this criterion. The applicant is proposing an east-west
connection in the I/C district, between lots 41 and 42. This right-of-way is proposed to be 60-
feet wide and is to address the fact that Lots 45 and 46 otherwise have no access to a road.
Commercial roads are required by 15.12D(2) to be built to public roadway standards and be
dedicated to the City as a public roadway. LDR 14.06 requires parking to be located to the rear
or side of the building relative to the public street. The applicant is concerned that by offering a
ROW, they will be required to locate parking to the rear or side relative to the ROW. The Board
finds the applicants proposed ROW complies with 15.12D(2) and that the road shall be built to
public roadway standards, but the road is not intended to remain a private road, as allowed
under 15.12D(3)(a): The DRB may it is discretion approve a roadway to be private if the
proposed roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial
subdivision or PUD). Should the street no longer function as a private service road under
subsequent applications for development in the IC zoning district, this finding shall be
reevaluated.
14.06B(2) Parking
The Board is prohibited by 15.02A(4) from granting waivers of this criterion even in the case of a
PUD.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
(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 only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirement of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ii) the parking area will serve a single or two-family home
Most of the parking falls under this exemption.
(iii) and (iv) Not applicable
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation
The Board finds that as configured, the Resident Club (open space Lot 33) and Lot 47
(dog park and play area) are principally for public recreation and accepts the parking as
proposed.
#SD-22-10
29
29 of 38
(11) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
See above under 14.06A Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
(12) 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.
D) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Board found at preliminary plat that if the project meets the objectives and considerations discussed
elsewhere in this document, minor modification of specific dimensional standards needed to provide the
well thought out and activated neighborhood design discussed herein will be granted.
Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout.
Density
The applicant has calculated that 102.6 acre project has an available density of 452 homes based on the
acreage of each included zoning district. The applicant has proposed 155 homes. The Board finds this
criterion met.
Setbacks
Setbacks are discussed under waivers above. The Board finds the 155 homes shall have 5-ft side and rear
setbacks, and 10-ft front yard setbacks, with the exception of lots 20-3, 20-4, 20-6, 20-21, 20-23, 20-24 and
20-26, which shall have 5-ft front setbacks. Additional details pertaining to setbacks are discussed under
14.07E above.
Within the C1-LR, setbacks shall be as indicated in the Mixed Use Design Guide.
Heights
151 homes are proposed in the R1-PRD, and 4 homes are proposed in the C1-LR. Heights in both zoning
districts are limited to 28-ft for a pitched roof. The applicant has provided a table of proposed grade and
potential heights measured from proposed grade based on the available homes for each lot.
11. See discussion in cover memo.
Lot Size
The homes are proposed on shared lots therefore minimum lot size does not apply. The applicant has
proposed footprint lots. The City does not recognize footprint lots. The footprint lots are not considered in
review of this application.
Easements
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 11/3/2022 and offers the following comments
pertaining to easements.
#SD-22-10
30
30 of 38
• All easements to the City of South Burlington are proposed and not final until such time as they
are accepted by City council. Consider adding the word “proposed” to the plat and easement
plan to clarify this.
• Consider reconfiguring the drainage pipe on the commercial properties north of Obrien farm
Road east (lots 52 to 55). Drainage infrastructure to be owned/maintained by the City should be
in a public ROW. Placement along a property boundary may also be considered. However, it is
unlikely that the City will accept drainage or sewer easements that run through commercial
properties. Placing public easements through these lots would also limit the constructability of
these lots since no structures are allowed within City easements.
The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Director of Public Works as a condition of
approval.
The applicant is proposing to create a lot without frontage, Lot 55. The Board finds the applicant must
provide an access easement to the benefit of Lot 55 crossing Lot 53.
E) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
B. Inclusionary Units
(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 155 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the
applicant must provide 15.5, rounded to 16, inclusionary units.
At preliminary plat, the Affordable Housing Committee testified that they were happy with the
applicants proposal, including the proposal to provide inclusionary units with higher bedroom
counts, provided that amenities be available to all units.
The applicant is proposing eight (8) four bedroom inclusionary units, where the units are
considered to be four bedroom under the provision of LDR 18.01C(2)(b)(viii) which states
“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.” The applicant
testified that each unit will have three bedrooms and an unfinished basement with an egress
windows, or four bedrooms. The Board finds the applicant must demonstrate that each
inclusionary unit meets the above test for having four bedrooms at the time of zoning permit
application. The applicant has identified the following units as inclusionary:
20-2 20-5 20-8 20-11
#SD-22-10
31
31 of 38
20-16 20-19 20-23 20-25
(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.
The inclusionary units are proposed to be the middle unit in the eight three-family buildings.
(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, the Board finds this
criterion met.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
O’Brien Brothers has touted energy efficiency as in important element of this development.
They testified that all units will meet the stretch code and will include measures such as
additional insulation and higher efficiency fixtures. Additional costs will be required for
measures such as solar panels and heat pumps. The Board finds this criterion met.
(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 units planned to be affordable are 1,462 sf, therefore this criterion is met.
(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.
The Board’s considers this criterion as restricting inclusionary units to buildings with no more
than four units and with the appearance of single family homes. The Board finds this criterion
met.
#SD-22-10
32
32 of 38
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
The Board finds this criterion met.
(vii) 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 provided a chart demonstrating compliance with this criterion. In summary,
12% of the offered floor plans are for two bedroom units, while 75% of the offered floor plans
are for three bedroom units and 13% of the offered floor plans are for four bedroom units.
100% of the inclusionary units will be four bedroom units. The Board finds this criterion met,
though the applicant is still obligated under this criterion to update this computation at each
interval of 50 dwelling units.
(viii) 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.
This criterion is addressed under 18.01B(1)(a) above.
(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.
The inclusionary units are proposed in the first phase that includes dwelling units. However,
since the applicant has requested that subsequent phases be allowed to proceed concurrently
with the first phase, the Board finds that 25% of the inclusionary units shall be constructed and
made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on for each
additional 25% construction. This 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.
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
#SD-22-10
33
33 of 38
designees. The Board finds that the applicant must provide the required deed restrictions for continued
affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
F) 13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS
The applicant is proposing a “gravel extraction area” and construction staging area on Potash road.
They have revised their proposal to also include a soil stockpile and fill area on the far west of the PUD
near Potash Brook. The gravel extraction and construction staging area is currently the steepest portion
of the Industrial/Commercial zone, is presently wooded, and 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 at preliminary plat provided extensive discussion of
why they believe this ledge blasting is advantageous 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, the Board found
this proposed ledge removal through blasting shall be reviewed 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 and included specific conditions to be addressed at final plat.
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.
The Board finds these standards apply. The applicant has provided an assessment of proposed blasting
operations and noise impacts due to crushing of materials.
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.
Maximum depth of cut is 25-ft.
(2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material.
This is shown on Sheet Q-4. Cross sections are also provided.
(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.
Noise: The applicant has prepared a noise study evaluating the impacts of rock crushing
operations. The applicant is proposing to blast materials and crush them on site for use as
foundation materials for the proposed development. The study concludes that continuous noise
levels from drilling and rock crushing will be below ambient levels. The applicant testified that
#SD-22-10
34
34 of 38
noise from blasting itself is not an impactful component of blasting; vibration and air overpressure
impact is what people notice.
The applicant testified that they prepared a full noise analysis of impacts of necessary blasting
for each residence, distinct from blasting for rock crushing, which was not part of their
submission. The ongoing noise level will exceed 55 dB (ambient) for homes by around 10 days,
but not the same homes at the same 10 days. They've limited the vibration levels to half of
industry standard. Further lowering the allowable vibration levels does not functionally lower
risk of damage. They will be doing construction at the same time as the blasting, and expect
blasting for the homes to be around 120 days
Dust: The applicant has stated that dust will not be a problem due to the location of the area
relative to existing development. Dust is proposed to be controlled by use of water, and drill
machines are proposed to be equipped with dust collectors.
Vibration: The applicant has provided a blast impact assessment, which includes the following
statement as to vibrations.
Vibrations may be noticeable and therefore may result in complaints, at PPVs as low as
0.02 to 0.06 in/sec. This is equivalent to the vibrations generated from a heavy truck
traveling down a bumpy road, and vibrations of this magnitude should be expected for
neighboring residences Experience has shown that blasting operations in locations such
as the Project will be felt by neighbors and that the impacts will feel significant, even if
they are well below the design standard. There is no correlation between the design
standard that is studied and documented to be safe for structures, and the human
experience of vibration in their home. The Project Owner is keenly aware of this, having
experience from the Phase I blasting operations. It is impossible to set a design standard
for blasting that is imperceptible as the blasts would be too small to make meaningful
progress, but this Project has set its design standard at 50% of the levels we know to cause
damage, well below what is required. We believe that this reduction in allowable vibration
is meaningful, will greatly reduce the perception of vibrations for neighbors, and will
eliminate the risk of damage to surrounding structures.
The Board finds no additional review of vibration to be necessary.
(6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical
damage on public ways.
The applicant has stated that they will be using “haul roads,” shown on EPSC sheets 12, 14, 15,
and 17, to truck material to and from the construction staging area. Additional discussion of haul
roads is below.
(7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover.
The applicant is proposing to use a sediment trap to control runoff. This project will be subject to
a state individual permit for stormwater runoff from construction sites, which will impose design
requirements on sediment control measures.
The applicant has indicated that the area could be potentially used for construction staging for as
long as 15 years. The applicant has proposed to vegetate the site six months after when rock
removal and crushing operations are complete. City erosion control measures require the
following.
16.03B Erosion and Sediment Control
#SD-22-10
35
35 of 38
(1) The smallest practical area of land should be exposed at any one time during
development. When land is exposed during development, the exposure should be kept
to the shortest practical period of time. Areas of disturbance must have temporary or
permanent stabilization within 21 days of initial disturbance.
(2) Land shall not be left exposed between October 15 and April 15.
(3) Where necessary, temporary vegetation and/or mulching and structural
measures shall be required by the Development Review Board to protect areas exposed
during the development.
(4) Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed
and maintained during development to remove sediment from run off water and from
land undergoing development.
(5) The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as
practical in the subdivision. Exposed soil must be seeded and mulched or covered with
erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading.
(6) Adequate and permanent measures shall be taken at culvert outfalls to
minimize or prevent erosion and disruption of drainageway areas.
The Board finds the applicant must comply with the timelines in the City’s erosion and sediment
control measures. Where bare rock is left exposed, or excavation is within a fully contained
depression, erosion control measures are not necessary.
The Board at preliminary plat required the applicant submit following additional information
regarding earth products as part of their final plat application.
a. specific impacts and durations (both overall and frequency of operations)
The applicant has indicated that 70,000 cubic yards of materials are proposed to be
removed in cuts up to 25-ft. They estimate 75 days of drilling and blasting. Staff notes
drilling and blasting will not occur continuously but instead will have delay windows
while equipment is repaired. They anticipate 5 – 10 blasts per week.
The applicant is planning on the 75 days being as reasonably contiguous as possible.
They are planning for the blasting to be completed in the winter of 2022-2023. The
blasting outside of the gravel extraction area is proposed to be in two phases either a
few months apart or a winter apart. The applicant’s individual permit for stormwater
runoff will require the blasting to occur in two phases
b. specific mitigation measures – visual, noise, dust, roadway impacts
Proposed Mitigation measures are generally limited to best practices and do not seem
to include site specific measures.
Blasting operations are proposed to begin at 7AM and end before 5PM Monday through
Friday. The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits use of power equipment or
machinery, and noise resulting from construction, before 7AM. The applicant clarified
that there will not be any work before 7AM. The Board finds this shall be incorporated
as a condition of approval. Road closures must be coordinated with the Department of
Public Works, which may limit road closures to outside peak traffic hours. Further,
blasting and crushing work shall be prohibited on Federal Holidays.
#SD-22-10
36
36 of 38
c. construction access road – location, plans, phasing and how it affects houses. The
construction should proceed from the most remote end back towards the staging area,
and be removed as construction is completed. The plan should show how construction
access road is retired including timing and physical appearance.
As noted above, the applicant has proposed a haul road, shown on EPSC sheets 12, 14,
15, and 17. Construction traffic shall use the haul road or approved internal roadways.
The Board finds the applicant may not clear or otherwise disturb areas the following
areas:
- areas not otherwise disturbed, and specifically areas not otherwise approved for
disturbance such as phases for which no zoning permit has yet been issued or areas
within the PUD but outside the area approved for development
- areas to remain vegetated
- wooded areas
Occasional traversing of these areas without visible resulting impacts shall be permitted.
d. plan for site restoration in the event of work stoppage
As noted above pertaining to erosion prevention and sediment control, the applicant is
proposing to topsoil and seed the site six months after when rock removal and crushing
operations are complete.
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.
The applicant has requested six years to complete the work in the construction staging area.
However, they are also asking that the stone pad proposed for crushing and blasting operations
be allowed to remain indefinitely as a construction staging area. They anticipate a timeline of 10-
15 years. The Board finds the construction staging area shall be restored no longer than eighteen
months after the issuance of the most recent zoning permit for the approved homes. This would
mean that should the applicant fail to pull a zoning permit for the approved homes for 18 months,
even if all 155 homes were not built, the applicant would need to remove the construction staging
area. Should the applicant later wish to use the construction staging area for construction in the
C1-LR or IC zoning districts, or there be an unanticipated but finite delay, they may apply for
approval to do so at that time.
12. Members were divided on this final sentence and agreed to discuss in deliberation.
(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.
The applicants proposed rehabilitation plan has already been discussed.
(3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed.
The applicant is requesting to be permitted to work 7AM to 7PM Monday to Friday with no
weekend hours for blasting or crushing. They request standard construction be allowed on
weekends from 8AM to 5PM.
#SD-22-10
37
37 of 38
The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits construction noise between 9PM and 7AM. The
Board accepts the applicant’s proposal for work to occur between 7AM and 7PM but amends it
to exclude federal holidays from blasting and crushing operations.
(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.
The applicant is proposing a $50,000 bond for site restoration. They argue that the crushed rock
has it’s own value and could be used should additional funds be needed to restore the site. The
Director of Public Works advised that this is an acceptable amount. The Board finds the
applicant must provide this surety prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the rock extraction
area.
Appendix A Performance Standards
These are written as performance standards for operations, and construction by its nature exceeds the
performance standards, but they remain a useful guidepost.
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.
The proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits. The Board at
preliminary plat determined this standard is not directly applicable because it was written for
permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board reserved the right to include conditions at final
plat or when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for which the numeric
standards in this criterion may be exceeded. The Board finds the above analysis of blasting
operations to adequately address this criterion.
A.3 Noise
(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.
The Board at preliminary plat determined these criteria are not directly applicable because they
were written for permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board reserved the right to include
conditions at final plat or when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for
which the numeric standards in this criterion may be exceeded. The Board finds the above analysis
of noise to adequately address this criterion.
#SD-22-10
38
38 of 38
G) ENERGY
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
DECISION
Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve Final Plat Application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC,
subject to the following conditions:
Staff will draft conditions based on the findings of fact after the Board has closed the hearing.
Conditions will reiterate waivers fully approved at preliminary plat as well as include new or modified
conditions from these findings.
Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
John Stern Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 0 – 0 – 0.
Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2022, by
_____________________________________
Dawn Philibert, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.