Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (2) 1 1 of 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-22-10_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_FP_SC_2021-07- 19.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 13, 2022 Plans received: June 10, 2022 500 Old Farm Road Final Plat Application #SD-22-10 Meeting date: July 19, 2022 Owner O’Brien Family Limited Liability Company, Daniel and Sandra O’Brien, Stephanie O’Brien 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant O’Brien Eastview, LLC 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1260-0200F, 0970-00255.C, 0970-00255, 0980- 00055 Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD and Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning Districts Traffic Overlay District Zones 1 and 3, Transit Overlay District 102 acres Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester VT 05446 Location Map #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 2 2 of 10 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. PERMIT HISTORY 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. The preliminary plat decision included a number of conditions which were required to be addressed as part of this final plat application. In addition, the applicant has made some changes to the project which are described in their 45-page application narrative. Since this project encompasses three distinct areas and includes seven public streets, Staff proposes the Board reviews the project over the course of at least three meetings. The staff report for this, the first meeting, focuses on what has changed since preliminary plat, the roadways, paths and sidewalks, and the single, two and three family home areas. Necessarily, other elements will be touched upon, and Staff proposes to make note of areas which the Board would like additional information for particular attention at future meetings. Future meetings would address open spaces, the design of the project within the C1-LR area, the design of the IC area, and final details such as stormwater, lighting and other utilities. The preliminary plat also granted a number of waivers, which are noted herein as applicable. CONTEXT 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% R12 1% 60% IC 38% 70% 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. #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 3 3 of 10 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. 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. 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. Staff proposes to discuss these areas at a later hearing date. • 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. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on June 10, 2022 and offer the following comments. CHANGES SINCE PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Staff recommends the Board begin the hearing by inviting the applicant to walk through the changes that have been made since preliminary plat in a broad way, including both the reason for the changes and what principals the applicant applied in choosing the new alternative. Staff considers the most significant changes are as follows.  Removal of recreation path connection to Tilley Drive. The final plat has removed the off-site construction of a recreation path from the southern end of the property to Tilley Drive. Background: When the project was first submitted for preliminary plat, it proposed roadway widening at a number of off-site intersections due to the applicant’s predicted changes in traffic patterns. Staff and the Board directed the applicant to revise the project approach for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan goals of walkable, clean and green, by reducing the emphasis on motor vehicles and increasing the emphasis on creating a sense of place with ample opportunity for non-motor vehicle travel. In particular, the applicant was directed to review the “VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan” (November 2020) and incorporate the recommendations and assumptions of that study into the design of the project. The applicant revised their plan, reducing the extent and cost of off-site improvements in exchange for increasing the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including a recreation path connection to Tilley Drive along the planned roadway shown on the Official Map. The City does not yet have ownership #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 4 4 of 10 or an irrevocable offer for the planned roadway right of way, though the property owner, Pizzagalli, has indicated that they have “reserved” this land for future roadway connection. The applicant’s approved preliminary plat included construction of the recreation path component of this official map roadway, a connection which they now indicate the adjoining property owner has denied them permission to construct. The Board relied heavily on this recreation path connection in making the determination at Preliminary Plat that the project should construct a sidewalk along Old Farm Road connecting the project to Hinesburg Road instead of a recreation path. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what improvements they are proposing to replace the previously included path, which is a founding supposition of the “VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan” upon which the applicant’s traffic study was based. Staff reminds the Board that they are currently reviewing an application from UVMMC for development of the parcel to the south.  Removal of the resident club and replacement with a scaled-down community barn center. The Boards preliminary findings related to the resident club focus on the relationship of the adjoining homes to the club and the recreational use. Staff considers it important that the open spaces approved at preliminary plat remain integral to the project, but that modifications in their design may be acceptable if the Board finds they will remain a vibrant part of the neighborhood. The community barn center is proposed to have a “public access and maintenance agreement, ownership maintained by HOA.” 3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the current proposal for the space, including the use of the existing barn. The applicant should also clarify at this time what is meant by a public maintenance agreement, so that Staff can review the proposal internally prior closing the hearing.  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. This area is located in the C1-LR zoning district. The C1-LR zoning district is a zoning district with limited locations within the City formed in order to encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the City to serve nearby residential areas, generally accessible by motor vehicle and by foot. Staff considers it important that the applicant achieve a transition from the area proposed for single, two and three family homes to the area envisioned for larger lot development. Since the C1-LR area will be discussed a future hearing date, Staff does not have any recommendations for discussion at this meeting.  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. While this area was contemplated for development of homes, Staff recommends the Board review this area as it pertains to the principal of creating a pedestrian-oriented environment and has included discussion thereof in the review of the roadways. Updated roadway and bike/ped infrastructure based on recommendations of updated Traffic Impact Assessment and Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Review documents prepared by the applicant. There have been a number of other changes which Staff considers to be evolutions in design appropriate to the final plat level of review, as well as conditions of the preliminary plat with which the applicant has requested to not be required to comply. Staff considers the former to be appropriate, and #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 5 5 of 10 the latter to be largely inappropriate at this stage of review, though the evolutions and requests are discussed with their related topics herein. This final plat application also contains several requests by the applicant to revisit conditions of the preliminary plat. One theme that the Board will note in this and future staff reports on this application is that Staff recommends the Board reject requests of the applicant to change conditions of preliminary plat where no circumstances have changed nor new information come to light. The Board performed a comprehensive review of the project at the preliminary plat stage. The final plat stage of review is intended to be a final clean-up of the project as presented at preliminary plat and Staff considers it a poor use of the Board and applicant’s limited time to rehash discussions which were conducted at preliminary plat. • Among items in this list is a request for the City to take responsibility for scoping and construction of the sidewalk along Old Farm Road. See discussion of this request under the transportation heading. Finally, for the purposes of this first review hearing, Staff has organized the notes by major theme topic. TRANSPORTATION The applicant has provided an updated traffic impact analysis dated March 30, 2022 and a new document entitled “Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Review” dated March 22, 2022. Taken together, these documents represent the basis of design of the roadway striping, signalization, paths and sidewalks. 4. Staff recommends the Board invoke an independent technical review of these updated materials, including the two reports. The narrow purpose of such a review would be to evaluate the new bike & ped study, confirm the updated TIA reflects the preliminary plat decision, and confirm the design of the project correctly implements the recommendations of both studies. The Director of Public Works reviewed the project on 7/8/2022 and offers a number of very detailed comments which are included in the packet for the Board and applicant. Staff generally recommends the Board direct the applicant to address the comments of the Director of Public Works, but wishes to highlight a small number of these comments for Board discussion. DPW comments on Old Farm Road Sidewalk • The sidewalk along Old Farm Road is proposed to dead end at Hinesburg Road. In order to facilitate pedestrian traffic, a connection needs to be made to the existing path located to the south (near Tilley Drive) that currently dead ends on Pizzagalli Properties, LLC. 5. Staff supports this comment and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the design of the sidewalk to address it. The recommended modifications will be within the City ROW. • The sidewalk proposed along Old Farm Road is shown with no green space between it and the road (in some sections). Consider moving the sidewalk to the edge of the ROW to allow for green space. The sidewalk as proposed has some sharp turns/angles along its length. It will be difficult to maintain. The applicant will need to modify this to provide a more maintainable sidewalk. This #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 6 6 of 10 will likely require relocation of existing drainage infrastructure in the ROW. It is also recommended that the plans include stone splash pads at pipe outlets. The City’s minimum culvert pipe size is 15” and driveway culvert is recommended to be 18” (https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/operations/TheOrangeBook.pdf) Staff supports this specific comment, though considers that the sidewalk not necessarily need be moved to the edge of the right of way, simply that 5 – 6 ft of green belt be provided and that the sidewalk should be straight. • It is the DPW’s desire that this sidewalk along Old Farm Road be constructed as part of the O’brien Eastview1 project. Based on DPW’s current work load, if construction of this path were to become a City responsibility it would likely not be completed in a timeframe that would match up with home construction for the proposed development. The applicant has indicated it is their desire for the City to conduct a scoping study and for the City to construct the required sidewalk on Old Farm Road between the project and Hinesburg Road. The applicant is making this request because of the potential for the project to be appealed if the Board requires them to construct the sidewalk. As will be repeated throughout these staff notes, the Applicant’s roadway network relies on the “VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan,” which includes this pedestrian connection. 6. The Board discussed this subject at length at preliminary plat and concluded that the connection to 116 is an integral part of the Board’s approval of the project. Staff recommends the Board leave unchanged their carefully considered conclusion that it must be constructed as part of the project. The Board included findings requiring design of this sidewalk in their preliminary plat decision. Review of the sidewalk design will be integrated into review of the project as a whole. DPW comments on private alley south of O’Brien Farm Road Extension As noted above, this is a newly-configured area. A short driveway/private road is proposed to serve these homes, with the homes then (presumably) configured to face northwards toward the stormwater facility and O’Brien Farm Road East. There are a number of DPW comments related to the design of the driveway serving homes 24-1 through 24-4. Staff recommends the Board review design of the driveway and sidewalk in this area and provide direction to the applicant before they incorporate the comments of the Director of Public Works. The DPW comments express confusion about the functionality of this road/alley, and Staff considers it important to make a determination on the general layout before making detailed revisions. Homes 24-1 through 24-2 appear to be proposed to be served by detached garages separated from the building by less than 5-feet. Staff considers, based on experience with zoning permit applications, that it is unlikely these homeowners will find this configuration to be desirable and recommends the applicant consider a different home configuration, unless this configuration is driven by a specific site constraint 1 Staff has confirmed the DPW director was referring to the current proposal in making this comment. #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 7 7 of 10 that is not immediately apparent. If the garage is attached, the applicant will likely need to request a rear setback waiver 7. This location should be a gateway to the neighborhood with the homes facing north. The applicant has proposed 20-ft of pavement to the rear of homes with sidewalks to the front of the homes. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe their objectives with this configuration, and determine if it is generally acceptable. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to commit to this design as an alley by clearly demonstrating that the homes are facing north and configuring the alley as a driveway access for the homes with no amenities. Homes on Lot 36 As noted above, the applicant has proposed five cottage style homes on Lot 36. This area was contemplated for retention of the existing home and future development at preliminary plat, and the applicant explained that due to flooding of the existing home, they have determined to include redevelopment of this lot as part of this application. Staff supports the inclusion of additional homes, but questions the applicant’s proposal to locate the homes on top of a plateau five feet above the adjacent roadway created by a new retaining wall. 8. Since the homes will be of a different style and set apart from the road, Staff considers this configuration will detract from their being integrated into the neighborhood. Staff supports these homes as cottages if possible as a way of integrating a variety of home styles into the development, but recommends the Board discuss whether there is a way to construct homes in this location with a less jarring transition than a retaining wall. Barn Road Extension to Property Line and Lot Coverage Generally The Applicant has stated in their application narrative that for the extension of Barn Road and Barn Road sidewalk, as well as for a number of other transportation components, they have presented a design which they recognize as less than ideal because of limitations on lot coverage. The LDR specifically prohibits the Board from waiving lot coverage beyond the maximum allowed in a zoning district. While Staff does not make this suggestion lightly, the LDR does not prohibit the Board from excluding roads which are proposed to become public from the computation of lot coverage. The R1-PRD zoning district, in which the single, two, and three family homes are located, has a maximum allowable coverage of 30%. 9. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to make a presentation on the area of lot coverage that makes up proposed public roadways and pedestrian infrastructure within the rights of way, and what percentage of the overall coverage in the R1-PRD those elements represent, and recommends the Board consider whether to allow the applicant to discount some fraction of the public roadways from the computation of lot coverage in exchange for implementing the requests of the Board in terms of sidewalk and rec path connectivity. PHASING The preliminary plat included a phasing plan for the infrastructure, single, two and three family areas of the project. The Board’s preliminary findings required the applicant to refine the phasing plan, and ultimately concluded the phasing plan would be amended, clarified, and reviewed all together at final plat. #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 8 8 of 10 One key requirement was for the applicant to propose a time for completion of non-residential phases, such as roads and open spaces, based on time elapsed from the beginning of that phase. Staff considers this to be the primary remaining issue related to phasing. The specific requirements of preliminary plat are enumerated and discussed as follows. 1. PP Requirement: The construction staging area and soil stockpile and fill area phases (Phase 1 and 4) shall not commence prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for infrastructure or home construction. FP Update: Staff considers this has only been addressed for Phase 4 and not for phase 1. 10. Since the circumstances regarding this condition have not changed, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the phasing plan as required. 2. PP Requirement: Offsite traffic improvements triggers shall be developed based on recommendations from the modified traffic study, as discussed in response to 15.18A(3) below. FP Update: The applicant has provided a traffic impact assessment which ultimately recommends that the off-site improvements not be constructed until the beginning of the C1-LR phases at earliest. Since the C1-LR phases are not proposed to be part of this final plat application, unless the independent traffic review recommends otherwise, Staff considers no additional phasing triggers to be needed and recommends they be rephrased on the phasing plan to be indicated as “when warranted” and a condition be included. 3. PP Requirement: The phrase “at discretion of applicant” is superfluous and shall be removed. FP Update: This refers to the triggers for when a phase can be begun, and the applicant has removed it. 4. PP Requirement: Triggers to begin on-site non-residential phases other than I/C Road (Phase 14) and O’Brien Farm Road Extension (Phase 9) shall be tied to percentages of residential zoning permits, and completion date shall be based on a time elapsed from the beginning of that phase. FP Update: The applicant in their narrative objects to this condition. Staff considers no change in circumstances has occurred that would warrant the Board’s reconsideration of this condition. The applicant argues that there would be a financial hardship if the applicant were not able to complete the project yet were still required to complete non-residential components such as roads and open spaces. Staff reminds the Board that their specific intention in including this condition was to ensure the approved supporting elements were constructed even if the applicant chooses to not complete construction of all the homes. If the applicant’s proposal to have the open space or infrastructure completion tied to a % of zoning permits, the applicant could simply stop short of the required number of zoning permits and never build the supporting elements. 11. Staff recommends the Board give the applicant the opportunity to put forth an alternative proposal that achieves the same objective of providing certainty that infrastructure will be completed in a timely manner relative to construction of the majority of homes. If no such alternative exists, Staff considers there has been no change in circumstances which would warrant modification of this requirement. #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 9 9 of 10 5. PP Requirement: Old Farm Road relocation (Phase 8) shall commence no later than issuance of 30% of permits for the approved 146 units, and shall be modified to include connection of O’Brien Farm Road to Old Farm Road (Phase 10) FP Update: The applicant has made this change but has not consolidated phase 8 and 10; they have simply tied Phase 10 to Phase 8. Staff recommends for simplicity on an already complex project that Phase 10 be rolled into Phase 8 rather than listed separately. 6. PP Requirement: Triggers to begin construction of I/C Road and O’Brien Farm Road Extension shall be tied to zoning permits for the I/C and C1-LR zoning districts, respectively, and completion date shall be based on a time elapsed from the beginning of that phase. 12. FP Update: The applicant objects to this condition for the same reason they object to condition #4 above, and Staff recommends its retention for the same reason as above. In addition, the preliminary plat phasing plan left out certain geographies from inclusion in any phase. • PP Requirement: Portions of the planned Kimball Ave recreation path are not included in any phase. Applicant must provide a proposed phasing for construction of the improvements FP Update: The applicant has included a portion with relocated Old Farm Road, which Staff supports. The applicant has included the remainder with the recreation amenity that includes the dog park. This amenity is proposed to be triggered by generation of 50% of the trips generated by the residential and C1-LR development area. This is unrelated to development of the I/C area, to which this recreation path is proposed to provide access. 13. Staff recommends the Board discuss requiring an either/or trigger that ties the portion of the rec path between Old Farm Road and Potash Road to development in the C1-LR or development in the I/C area, depending on which comes first. • PP Requirement: Planned Old Farm Road improvements are not included in any phase or on the Civil drawings. Planned Old Farm Road improvement include pedestrian, parking and travel way modifications. Applicant must modify their plans to include these elements and provide a proposed phasing for construction of the improvements. FP Update: The applicant has updated the plans to include Old Farm Road improvements in the adjacent residential phases. Staff considers this requirement to have been addressed. • PP Requirement: The schematic plan for “Hillside Bike and Recreation Connectivity” shows the construction of a recreation path within portions of the Hillside PUD connecting to Eastview. Applicant must provide a phasing plan for construction of those improvements and confirm any permitting requirements. FP Update: The applicant has included this path in Phase 2, which is proposed to be the first residential phase constructed. The applicant has also indicated verbally to Staff their intention to submit an amendment to Hillside to construct this path this summer. Staff anticipates this could be completed prior to issuance of the decision for this application, and encourages the applicant to do so in order to ensure the cleanest review possible. • PP Requirement: The non-vehicular connection to Tilley Drive is not included in any phase. Applicant must provide a proposed phasing for construction of the improvements. FP Update: As discussed above, this is no longer proposed. #SD-22-10 Staff Comments 10 10 of 10 The Director of Public Works reviewed the provided phasing plan on 7/8/2022 and offers the following additional comments. • Has the project applied for Construction General Permit (CGP) coverage from the State of Vermont? The phasing plan must account for any requirements related to any maximum area to be “opened up” for construction contained in the CGP. 14. Staff recommends the Board discuss this comment with the applicant. When will the CGP be available, and what does the applicant anticipate being the maximum allowable area of disturbance in the CGP? Are there conflicts with the proposed phase sizes? • The board should consider a condition indicating that, “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”. Make compliance with CGP a condition of the approval. Staff recommends the Board include this as a condition of approval. • Language contained in the “triggers” section of the column should be reviewed for clarity. In some cases, the language is imprecise (e.g. “any time prior to or after completion of..”, see phases 5 and 6) and does not appear to place any restrictions, or provide clarity, regarding when work will take place. 15. Staff supports this comment and recommends the Board require the applicant what is meant by this phrasing in order to understand whether an alternative phrasing with the same intent may be appropriate. Finally, the applicant has added “Phase 17,” which is the construction of a sidewalk on Old Farm Road from the southern end of the project area to VT 116. 16. The actual design of this sidewalk will be discussed elsewhere, but in terms of phasing, Staff recommends the Board require it to be constructed concurrently with the Old Farm Road improvements. In particular, Staff recommends it be included in Phase 8 in order to create the connectivity assumed in the “VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan.” Without the connections assumed in that report, the conclusions of the traffic study including signal warrants will be inaccurate. 17. Due to the numerous misunderstandings and disagreements discussed above, Staff recommends the Board require the phasing plan to be revised to the Board’s satisfaction prior to closing the hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein and continue the hearing for the purpose of reviewing the remaining applicable criterion. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner