HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road
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