HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (3)
1
1 of 16
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-10 500 Old Farm Road Final Plat Application
DATE: Sept 7, 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 a hearing on this application on July 19, 2022. The Board’s review on that date focused
on what has changed since preliminary plat, connection to Tilley Drive, the sidewalk on Old Farm Road,
and lot coverage. Additional Staff comments prepared for that hearing date but not yet discussed are
included herein. In addition, this report focuses on the general site plan review standards of 14.06 and
the design of the project within the C1-LR area. Remaining topics for future meetings include the
detailed site plan review standards of 14.07, PUD standards, inclusionary housing standards, and
miscellaneous final details such as stormwater, lighting and other utilities for future meetings.
The applicant provided revised materials on August 22, 2022. Review of these revised materials is
incorporated herein; criteria which Staff considers the Board to have indicated satisfied have been
removed from this report.
Staff reminds the Board that this project is subject to the LDR effective December 28, 2020 since those
were the regulations in effect when a complete preliminary plat application was submitted. For lots
being created in the C1-LR and I/O district for which no site plan has yet been submitted, the regulations
in effect at the time of application will apply, modified by any approvals that the Board may elect to
grant at this stage of review.
The remaining paragraphs of this Context section of this report are unchanged from the July 19, 2022
Staff Comments.
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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
2
2 of 16
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.
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 and August 22, 2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered
items for the Board attention are in red.
1. Given the large scale of this project and commensurate amount of time available for its review on
this September 7 hearing date, Staff recommends the Board use the September 7 hearing to review
the project in two sections. First, Staff has prepared standard Staff Comments which go through the
applicable criteria line by line. Staff recommends the Board spend no more than 90 minutes on this
portion of the review, followed by a short 3 minute break. After the break, Staff recommends the
Board review the applicant’s proposal for the C1-LR zoning district for the remainder of the available
time. As members may recall, the applicant was proposing a framework for development of the C1-
LR which would allow the applicant to subdivide the lots without requiring a detailed development
proposal. The applicant has worked with Staff to refine that proposal and is ready to present it to
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
3
3 of 16
the Board. As noted above, this framework would provide conditions and allowances for future
development, to be paired with site plan standards in effect at the time of application for those sites.
UPDATES FROM JULY 19, 2022 HEARING
Recreation path connection to Tilley Drive. The Board determined both at Preliminary Plat and at
the July 19 hearing that the project must be connected to Tilley Drive via a recreation path. The
Board’s conclusion included that the rec path connection may be either part of this Eastview
application or part of the concurrent application for the UVMMC surgery center at 119 Tilley Drive
(SP-22-023). Staff anticipates that the connection will be shown on the next submission from
UVMMC as indicated by the applicant at their most recent hearing. If the connection is not shown,
Staff recommends the Board revisit this requirement with the O’Brien applicant at the continued
meeting for this application.
Traffic. On July 19 the Board invoked a traffic technical review 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 technical review is
complete and has been included in the packet for the Board. The review supports the Board’s
requirement to create a recreation path connection to Tilley Drive, and otherwise generally concurs
with the applicant’s proposal.
2. Staff recommends the Board have the applicant confirm that the recommendations of the TIA and
bike & ped study are fully included on the plans.
Old Farm Road Sidewalk. The applicant has stated in their cover letter of 8/22 that they have
revised the sidewalk along Old Farm Road to both meet the objectives of the Board of providing a
pedestrian connection while retaining existing trees to the extent feasible and facilitate DPW
maintenance. No plan has been provided. Staff considers the applicant must provide a plan for the
Board’s review prior to closing the hearing and that such modification cannot be accepted as a
condition of approval.
Lot Coverage. It was discussed on July 19 that in order to address some of the requests of the Board
for site improvements while simultaneously providing the maximum density plus the required
number of affordable units, the applicant was requesting a portion of the coverage within the
roadways proposed to be public be subtracted from the total site coverage computation for the
property. The Board indicated they would consider such a proposal and requested the applicant
bring forward specific numbers for the Board’s review.
The applicant presents the following numbers in their letter of August 22.
• The R1-PRD zoning district has a maximum allowable lot coverage of 25%
• Within the R1, 28% of the proposed coverage is within the ROW, or 146,301 sf.
• Off-right of way elements included in the project consist of recreation paths, sidewalks,
parking areas, mid-block pedestrian connections, parks, trails, ramps and seating areas. The
area of these elements within the applicant’s proposal is 56,213 sf. It is not clear whether
this area is limited to within the R1 or whether this represents the Eastview project as a
whole, which includes lands within four zoning districts as tabulated above.
• The applicant is requesting the Board allow 56,213 of coverage within the ROW to be
removed from computation of coverage within the R1-PRD zoning district. This would allow
a cushion for the applicant to propose additional coverage both within the ROW (additional
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
4
4 of 16
on-street parking) and in response to Board comments, as well as should any of the
proposed 155 homes wish to construct an addition in the future. For a sense of scale only, If
all of the allowable additional coverage were used for home additions, each home would
have approximately 360 additional square feet available to expand.
3. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposal for removing a portion of the ROW lot
coverage from the computation of lot coverage within the R1-PRD zoning district.
4. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to develop a proposal for how to administer
minor home expansions in the future given the maximum allowable lot coverage and the eventual
private ownership of lots or footprint lots.
TOPICS NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AT FINAL PLAT STAGE OF REVIEW
Items from July 19, 2022 Staff Notes:
DPW comments on private alley serving Lot 24, south of O’Brien Farm Road Extension
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. Staff
interprets this to be homes fronting on Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road with backs on an alley.
DPW comments reflect an interpretation that the alley may be the main front of the building. Staff
recommends the Board affirm that this is an alley configuration.
5. 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 recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the
design objective in creating a small space between the homes and the garages.
Phasing
The preliminary plat included a phasing plan for the infrastructure, single, two and three family areas of
the project. The Board’s preliminary plat 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.
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.
6. 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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
5
5 of 16
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. 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.
7. 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.
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.
8. FP Update: The applicant objects to this condition for the same reason they object to condition
#4 above, and Staff’s recommendation is the same 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
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
6
6 of 16
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.
9. 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. Staff further recommends the Board direct the
applicant to provide the necessary calculation as to what would be 50% of the trips, as otherwise
this metric will be difficult to track.
• 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.
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.
10. 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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
7
7 of 16
• 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
New Staff Comments for the 9/7/2022 Hearing: The remainder of the Staff report represents review of
items not included in the July 19 report. It begins with review of General Site Plan Review Standards,
and moves to review of the C1-LR, which in the preliminary plat findings was embedded within the
discussion of General Site Plan Review Standards. Staff proposes a similar format for the final plat
decision.
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 found this criterion to be met at the preliminary plat stage of review. As noted in the Staff
Comments of July 17, the final plat stage of review is intended to be a final clean-up of the project as
presented at preliminary plat. Staff has, throughout this report, recommended the Board reject
requests of the applicant to change conditions of preliminary plat where no circumstances have changed
nor new information come to light. Not only is rehashing discussions a poor use of the Board and
applicant’s limited time, changes to specific conditions imposed by the Board may affect compliance
with this and other general review criteria.
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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
8
8 of 16
(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.
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. Staff considers 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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
9
9 of 16
14. The applicant has reduced the number of homes from six to five, and has arranged the homes more
consistently. However, the central organizing feature appears to be a utility cabinet. Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to relocate the utility cabinet to another location so that
and demonstrate that how they are refining the design to provide a thoughtfully designed central
common space. One improvement should include looping the sidewalk in front of the units.
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
sidewalk directly connects to two pedestrian access points to the adjacent Hillside development.
Staff supports 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. Staff considers this condition to
have been addressed.
Adequacy of Planting
Plantings were not reviewed at preliminary plat. 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 transitions and this criterion while balancing the connectivity needs
discussed elsewhere in this decision. The NRCC comments from preliminary plat follow.
A new fifty-foot-wide hedgerow to connect the hedgerow to the south with the wetland corridor to
the north creating a complete protective wildlife habitat corridor across the middle of the property.
Such a corridor could be parallel and adjacent to the planned recreation path. Such a corridor would
utilize the culvert under Kimball Avenue for road crossings.
The paths and green corridors would be excellent areas to plant native trees species and native
flowering plants for wildlife & pollinators. Has this been considered, or are the developers/managers
planning to mow along the paths and green corridors?
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
10
10 of 16
If the applicant wishes to plant non-native species, their use should be limited to along the roads and
the parks within the developed area.
The applicant has not provided a hedgerow along the recreation path between the residential zone and
the industrial/commercial zone of the property. Specifically, the applicant mentions in their narrative
that they are unable to provide more dense plantings in this area because of a “duplicative path.” A
screenshot of the area in question is provided below, with the walking trail highlighted in peach, the rec
paths highlighted in yellow, and wetland buffers highlighted in green.
15. Staff notes the provision of a looped walking trail was a requirement of the Board. Staff
recommends, the Board consider whether the value of increasing habitat connectivity in this area
outweighs the benefit of having a separate recreation path and walking trail along the southern
section of Potash Road.
Safe pedestrian movement
The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee recommends “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. Required minimum landscaping
dollars may be used to create attractive “pause places” along bike and pedestrian routes in appropriate
locations.
16. Staff considers it appears that the applicant has provided ADA alternative routes where paths have
stairs, but recommends the Board give the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate how this
condition is met since their application narrative only speaks in general terms to pedestrian
movement and not to the provision of equitable access or pause places.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
11
11 of 16
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.
17. Staff recommends the Board discuss the applicant whether there should be temporary overflow dog
park parking available in the C1-LR district, as overflow from the dog park will likely occur in that
area once it is constructed.
Connections/Transitions between Project and Hillside
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 preliminarily found 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. Staff considers no modifications to
this finding to be necessary.
Connections/Transitions between Industrial-Commercial area 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 found to be acceptable at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
modifications to this finding to be necessary.
Connections/Transitions between R1 and I/C zone:
East-west connections have been identified as a need in South Burlington comprehensive plans since
before zoning existed. 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 a right of way and stub off Legacy Farm Ext which can connect
to the I/C road on the adjacent property at a more gentle slope if/when that parcel is developed. The
Board preliminarily found 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 I/C Road
and Legacy Farm Extension, and therefore the Board found both roadways and associated infrastructure
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
12
12 of 16
must be extended to the property line. If the Board grants the request to remove some ROW
impervious cover from the calculation of coverage, the applicant should be able to address this
requirement.
The Board further found the pedestrian connection between Potash Road and Mabel Way must be
made accessible to non-pedestrian non-motor vehicle traffic including bicycles and strollers. It shall also
be modified to include a greater visual break so as to obviate and make the path comfortable to use.
This condition has been addressed.
C1-LR Zoning District
Staff reminds the Board that there is only one C1-LR location in the City, and that is this intersection.
Retail uses in the C1-LR is limited to 5,000 sf per use in a 15,000 sf building. The purpose of the C1-LR
includes is as follows.
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.
As noted above, the applicant has requested to subdivide the C1-LR without providing a development
plan, and instead has requested approval of a development framework. This framework consists of a
set of dimensional standards and other miscellaneous standards, presented by the applicant in a
“Design Guide” document.
As a reminder, the applicant’s purpose in marking this request is to obtain a level of certainty from the
Board – particularly in regard to building height (waivers requested), massing, and orientation, at this
stage of review as they see this as a key component of the overall project and its associated
infrastructure.
The Board’s preliminary plat findings required the applicant to address the following six conditions.
• There are 2 large blocks proposed. The one to the east has a concept of a green in the center.
There should be a unifying element on the west block as well to unify the design.
• Parking should not be a dominant feature
• The grade difference from north to south should be used to create active spaces. It should not
result in the neighborhood turning its back on other areas. Examples of using the grade include
partial stories, promenades or public spaces, and artwork on walls built into the slope.
• Parking decks should be partially or completely underground
• Buildings should have features that tie the lots together
• The project shall be designed to attract and facilitate a mix of uses promoting evening as well as
day-time and weekend uses including office, commercial and residential. Demonstration of how
this mix will be promoted shall be provided at final plat.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
13
13 of 16
18. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to present the concept for the C1-LR, including how
it is to be used (ie what aspects of it can be considered a proposal and what aspects are a concept),
how it addresses the preliminary plat conditions, and whether the proposed subdivision plan
presented on sheets PL-1 and PL-2 will need to be changed (and if so, when the Board can expect
receiving that proposal).
19. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the concept to have achieved the
conditions of preliminary plat, and if so, what about the concept they find to have been successful.
Staff will take those elements and ensure they are incorporated into the final plat decision.
Design Guide
The applicant at preliminary plat provided a “design guide” document for the C1-LR zoning district,
modeled after the Building Envelope Standards tables applicable in the City’s Form Based Code zoning
districts, in which they proposed certain characteristics to which development in the C1-LR zoning
district will conform (with the applicant also requesting authority for the Board to waive several of these
at the site plan stage). The Board found some of the elements of the applicant’s proposal, including the
design guide, to be appropriate, while others were found to be problematic. Staff has removed findings
which have been addressed from the below discussion.
1. The Board provided in their preliminary plat findings a definition for which building facades are
primary and which facades are secondary. The Board preliminarily found primary façade standards
to apply on Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road, with secondary façade standards
applicable on other roadways, and no façade standards applicable on facades that are separated
from a roadway by another development lot. It appears the applicant is proposing to reorient to
have a primary façades as a façade facing the primary pedestrian way.
20. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposal to include the central organizing
feature as a primary façade provided that Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road are also considered
primary facades, which allows Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave to not function as primary facades.
Several buildings will have multiple facades that should be considered as primary facades.
2. The applicant previously proposed a frontage buildout minimum. The Board found that the
applicant must propose a maximum frontage that shall be permitted to be parking, regardless of
whether the parking is in a garage or on the surface, to be reviewed at final plat.
21. It does not appear the applicant has made such a proposal. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to propose a maximum primary frontage (as described above, the central organizing
element, Old Farm Road, and O’Brien Farm Road) that can be parking. If the Board accepts this
proposal, the non-primary frontage could be fully parked, provided it complies with #5 below.
22. Relatedly, the applicant has added a section of the design guide that references stories above
parking which Staff does not understand (middle of the second page of the design guide). Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to remove this section of the design guide.
3. The Board found that for buildings with lower deck parking, parking may face the street if
sufficiently broken up with entrances, lobbies, upper story elements or other features, subject to
review and approval of the Board at the time of application for individual buildings. Staff
recommends the Board retain this finding.
4. The Board found that traffic calming measures to include at minimum a four-way stop and raised
pedestrian crossing must be provided at the intersection of O’Brien Farm Road and Old Farm Road.
Additional measures including differentiated surface treatment are encouraged.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
14
14 of 16
23. The applicant has proposed only stop control on O’Brien Farm Road and not on Old Farm Road.
Though the TIS found it to be unwarranted from a traffic management perspective, given that this
intersection is a major one within the development, Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to adhere to the preliminary plat finding and include it as a four-way stop.
5. At preliminary plat, the Board discussed with the applicant the need to define what is the front of
the lots for the purpose of parking location. As the Board is aware, parking must be located to the
side or rear except in limited circumstances, and this criterion is not waivable. The applicant’s
concept includes parking to the front of the buildings relative to Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave.
24. Staff recommends the Board, if the applicant has not already discussed it in their general
presentation on the C1-LR, ask the applicant to discuss their proposal and the alternative proposals
they considered. After hearing the applicant’s presentation, Staff recommends the Board consider a
finding that given the topography of the site, the applicant may locate parking between the building
and the street if the parking is at least 20-ft higher than the adjoining road surface and generally
level of the finish floor elevation of the adjoining buildings (with allowances for grading for drainage)
under 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.
25. Staff considers it to be within the Board’s authority to apply this standard to a block for a PUD rather
than a lot by lot basis. Staff notes that 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).
6. The applicant had previously proposed a build-to-zone, which has been removed from the design
guide. This would require buildings to be located no more than the proscribed distance from the
street. The applicant is proposing minimum building setbacks. Staff recommends the Board also
require a maximum setback or a build-to zone in order to ensure buildings be constructed with the
street presence presented in the concept.
7. The proposed 0 to 12-ft setback is very small compared to the standard setback of 30-ft for front
yards. The Board found at preliminary plat this setback shall only be permitted if the applicant
provides a very high quality street presence for the proposed buildings.
26. The applicant is requesting this finding be removed because they consider the high quality street
presence to be ensured by other findings. Staff would support the applicant’s request if a build-to-
zone is included as described above, and recommends the Board discuss.
Additional findings on the design guide are tabulated immediately below.
Applicant Proposed Element Preliminary plat finding Final plat update
Stories: 5 story maximum, with
upper stories permitted to be as
Given the prominence of this
location, the Board preliminarily
27. The applicant has
proposed 1.5 stories.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
15
15 of 16
little as 30% of the footprint of
the first story
finds that there shall be a
minimum of two stories for all
street-facing facades, with a
maximum of four stories. The
Board may allow for exceptions on
a case by case basis. If the
applicant wishes to construct a
fifth story, the fifth story should
be stepped back at least 20-feet.
Staff recommends the
Board require the
applicant to comply with
the condition of
preliminary plat.
Entrances: 2 per façade for
residential uses; maximum 100’
between entrances for non-
residential uses
The Board finds the applicant shall
focus on prominence of key
entrances at intersections, similar
to those within the Urban Design
Overlay District along Shelburne
and Williston Roads.
No change
Parking Maximum: 2 surface
spaces maximum for residential
units
Parking shall be determined on a
site by site basis. Given the
purpose statement for the district
– for the C1-LR to serve as
walkable destination for nearby
residents, the use of the land
should be for buildings and civic
spaces, with structured parking as
needed. Structured parking
should be emphasized over
surface parking.
No change
Streetscape: benches, café tables
and bicycle parking is permitted
within the streetscape
A minimum uninterrupted
sidewalk width of 5-ft shall be
required before these elements
are permitted. These elements
may not interrupt the 5-ft width.
Private café tables or other
elements within any City ROW will
be subject to any permitting / use
allowance adopted by the City.
28. This condition has not
been incorporated.
Staff recommends the
Board require the
applicant to comply with
the condition of
preliminary plat.
Street trees: 50 ft spacing Street tree maximum spacing shall
be 30-ft where not conflicting
with driveways or other curb cuts.
This condition has been
addressed.
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,
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-09-07
16
16 of 16
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner