HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (12)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL August 22, 2022 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: O’Brien Eastview Planned Unit Development Final Plat
Dear Board Members:
On April 14, 2022, we submitted our Application for Final Plat for the O’Brien Eastview project (the “Project”). The Project had its first Public Hearing (the “Public Hearing”)on July 19, 2022. In advance of that public hearing, the Applicant (O’Brien Eastview LLC), received a staff report dated July
13, 2022 (the “Staff Report”). The subsequent information is provided both in response to the Staff Report, as well as in response to discussion at the Public Hearing. For ease in reference, exhibit numbers herein are carried forward from the original application, new exhibits begin at Exhibit 213, which is the next available exhibit number in addition to what was submitted in the original application. Any exhibit provided that has the same Exhibit number as the original Application, is provided to supersede the previous exhibit. 1. Tilley Drive Rec Path Connection: As discussed extensively at the Public Hearing, the Applicant understands the importance of this pedestrian connection, and worked diligently to provide it as proposed at Preliminary Plat. Ultimately,
that effort did not succeed. As discussed at the Public Hearing, the Applicant is able to relocate the proposed recreation path further west, in an alignment that would enable the path to be connected to by projects currently in permitting on the Tilley Drive land. The Applicant has engineered these changes and
is providing here an updated site plan showing the new configuration. As proposed, the recreation path will end at the property line, to be connected to by adjacent projects. Exhibit 139 and Exhibit 147 demonstrate the new orientation. Exhibit 079 reconfigures the landscape in the area in accordance with
the new configuration and updates that landscape plan. If these changes are agreeable, the Applicant will finalize them across the full plan set prior to closing the hearing.
2. Old Farm Road Sidewalk: With guidance from the Board as to priorities for the sidewalk design, and the clear message that
preservation of the existing character was the priority, the Applicant met with Public Works to discuss the sidewalk design. The Applicant has developed a plan in coordination with Public Works and will incorporate those changes into the final plan set provided prior to closing the hearing. As discussed at the
2
Public Hearing, the sidewalk will not be extended beyond the end of Old Farm Road. We believe that this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of both the Department of Public Works and the Applicant.
3. Lot Coverage and Accommodation of Board Requests and Connectivity:
As discussed in the Staff Report and at the Public Hearing, lot coverage for the Project in the R1 district has been challenging. The district has an extremely low allowed coverage of only 25%, and while a PUD density bonus was written into the zoning regulations, no accounting for lot coverage was included
with that additional density. Good neighborhood design for a project of this scale includes significant amenities and significant additional coverage elements. A prime example of such design is the alley load garage access located on Lot 32. While this alley creates a much more desirable streetscape along Old Farm Road and eliminates the need for individual residential curb cuts, it also adds 11,086 square feet of coverage. Other examples of these types of design elements are recreation paths, sidewalks, parking areas, mid-block pedestrian connections, parks and trails, ramps, and seating areas. In the Eastview Project we totaled up all of these elements, areas where we have provided
amenities and design elements that increase coverage and are located outside of future city rights of way. In total, we found approximately 56,213 square feet of coverage associated with these design elements.
As requested at Staff Comment 9 in the Staff Report, we took a look at coverage proposed in what is to become a public right of way. Across Eastview, there are 146,301 square feet of coverage proposed in the R1 district in the right of way. This is approximately 28% of the coverage allowed in the
project. The Applicant believes that an appropriate percentage of the right of way coverage to be removed from the calculation is 56,213 square feet. The same number as the coverage associated with public amenity outlined above. As directed by Staff this will create a reasonable cushion to likely accommodate
any future coverage needs either from the city (potentially adding parking or play areas in parks), or from homeowners seeking small additions, covered decks, or other coverage increases as part of their home purchase. In addition, the Applicant would like to also propose some limited parallel parking in new
areas on Mabel Way, to ensure that limited additional visitor parking is available, as well as pull-offs to accommodate mail carriers, Fed-Ex and UPS. These design elements had been omitted due to coverage concerns, and if the Board is agreeable to this reduction, Applicant can now propose them. 4. Project Phasing: The Staff Report dedicated a few pages to review of the proposed project phasing, and compliance with the Preliminary Plat conditions. The Applicant believes it is correct to focus in detail on
this phasing, as it is an integral part of the Project, and the ability for the project to be viable and proceed forward. In general, the Applicant believes that the updated phasing plan, provided at Exhibit 123, accounts for all the minor issues raised in the Staff Report. Those items are not addressed individually
here. A couple of more significant issues were also raised in the Staff Report. Specifically: A. Staff Report Comment 11, Phase Triggers: The Applicant appreciates Staff’s suggestion that
perhaps an alternative trigger mechanism could work better than the initial suggestion of the applicant, and subsequent requests of the Board. Rather than proposing a starting point for a phase and a duration of time to complete it, the Applicant is recommending that we simply
provide a point in time when the Phase will be complete for all amenity phases. This method gives the applicant and the city certainty as to when the amenities will be delivered, without the complexity or requirement of guaranteeing the amount of time it will take to deliver them.
The applicant has amended the phasing plan to propose the following timing for delivery of key site amenities.
3
i. Lot 18 Open Space: Complete at 30th zoning permit issuance. ii. Lot 19 Open Space: Complete at 75th zoning permit issuance.
iii. Barn Lot Open Space: Complete by 125th zoning permit issuance. iv. Relocated Old Farm Road (curb to curb): Complete by 125th zoning permit issuance. v. Open Space Lot 47 and Playground: Complete by 400th zoning permit issuance.
vi. Old Farm Road Sidewalk: Complete by 400th zoning permit issuance. The Applicant is not proposing completion dates for the planned roadway phases. The
construction of the roadways in the project will progress with the construction of planned homes on the roadways and is somewhat market dependent. In the Hillside project, the development built the main roadways curb-to-curb and paved them with a basecoat of pavement. Sidewalks, rec paths, street trees, gas and electric utilities were then constructed with units, to ensure that they were not damaged or in the way during home site construction. This system worked very well, and we hope to replicate that approach. Because a bond will be issued for all these phases at the full value, the City will always have the ability to expedite construction should the Applicant not be proceeding in good faith. However, we
believe that the development can proceed effectively as Hillside did, constructing roadway elements outside the curb and houses somewhat simultaneously.
Please note that this logic also holds for the relocated Old Farm Road, and for the above stated reasons the applicant does not want to build the sidewalks, adjacent rec paths, or other infrastructure prior to permitting and building the structures that will be adjacent. As is the
case at Lot 13 and Lot 15 in Hillside, these adjacent elements can be largely dictated in character by the development. Concepts of the C1-LR provided here at Exhibit 015 and Exhibit 016 show how those elements may be designed. We realize however that in
constructing the new Old Farm Road, we must account for getting the recreation path on the west side down to Kimball Ave. Applicant will warrant and provide a rec path connection from Phase 2 to Kimball Ave. by the 125-zoning permit. However, it may not be adjacent to
Old Farm Road, may go cross-country, or may make use of the former Old Farm Road-way, for facilitating that need. The path may also be gravel and may need to move around as construction on various lots and phases progresses. Applicant believes that approval of this temporary connection should be left to the Department of Public Works, or the Administrative Officer. B. Staff Report Comment 12: This comment deals with a Board request that the construction of O’Brien Farm Road extension be tied to zoning permits for the C1-LR. The Applicant has
clarified the proposal for this area in the attached phasing plan. The development of Lot 21, Lot 26, Lot 22, does not necessarily trigger the need for the O’Brien Farm Road extension. The specific lots that require the need to construct the road are listed. Applicant will bond for
and begin construction of the roadway simultaneous with zoning permits for any of the lots listed. Roadway construction will progress with units as discussed above.
C. Staff Report Comment 16, Timing of Old Farm Road Sidewalk to Hinesburg Road: As the Board knows, subsequent to the Preliminary Plat approval, the Applicant’s permit was appealed on the sole issue that a neighbor on Old Farm Road did not believe the sidewalk
being required could or should be required as part of the Project. Since that time the Applicant has worked tirelessly with its neighbors to facilitate compromise and avoid litigation and delays to a project that will bring much needed housing (including 15
affordable housing units) to the market.
4
Over months of negotiation, we believe that there are a few paths to avoid litigation. The first and most simplistic would be to remove the requirement for the Applicant to build the
sidewalk and simply have the Applicant escrow the cost. The Board has repeatedly and summarily rejected this request. Given this, we have found an alternative compromise. Here, the Applicant is proposing to install significant landscape screening for our neighbor and is
requesting a delayed construction schedule to allow that screening time to mature. We have proposed installation of the sidewalk connection at the same time as when the playground and dog park will be installed on Kimball Ave, assuming that those largest public amenities, are
indicative of the timing when the totality of pedestrian connectivity would be most necessary. In addition to allowing compromise with our neighbors, it also makes sense not to continue to burden the earliest phase of the project with additional infrastructure cost. The Phasing Plan presented in this application is decidedly front loaded and provides the city with significantly more benefit than the project proposed for construction (155 dwelling units) requires or justifies. For some perspective, the elements of the project currently proposed for construction represent just 6.1% of the total traffic impacts proposed in Eastview. However,
the Board is currently requesting 72% of all planned public infrastructure be installed with that 6% of development intensity. With this sidewalk included in Phase 8, an additional 3% of infrastructure investment would be added to the 6% of development intensity. Meaning a
full 75% of all infrastructure proposed would be tied to the first 6% of development impact. In addition to the negative consequence of potentially ruining a carefully negotiated settlement with our neighbor, this request further burdens the housing component of this
project with expense that is far disproportionate to the impact and potentially hampers the overall viability of the project.
D. Staff Report Comment 15: It is true that some phases include language regarding the start of the phase that enables broad flexibility to the Applicant. These are roadway phases that serve residential development and/or phases that impact construction logistics. The Applicant has
not believed that the Board’s interest in project phasing is to determine when and how Applicant manages its site construction, but to ensure the amenities provided and key City interests are met on a firm timeline. The flexibility of language in these phases is intentional to ensure the Applicant can begin phases as needed to facilitate sales and construction, with accommodation for bonding and other permit compliance. The Applicant does not believe the Board needs to regulate the start of these phases, and indeed restrictions could prove problematic for Project administration. We hope the board appreciates this, and that the flexibility provided can remain, even if the language is changed to some degree.
5. Commercial and Limited Retail Development Proposal:
Subsequent to the submission of our final plat in April of 2022, the Applicant has met several times with staff and Applicant’s land planners to arrive at an amended concept and proposal for the C1-LR development lots included in this Project. A proposal that meets the goals of the City and the Project.
After a significant collective effort, the Applicant is pleased to present the board with this update to our original application.
The below outlines the key elements of the plan and key issues for review and discussion. A. Background on C1-LR Development Lots: As discussed throughout the Eastview permit
proceedings, the Project is proposing a great deal of infrastructure which is being required to be built early, and prior to the most impactful parts of the development from a traffic and overall density perspective. As noted above, a full 72% of the total infrastructure investment
5
for all 100 acres will be built prior to any projects being approved on the large development lots in the C1-LR and IC areas. Because the Applicant is committing to this significant front
loading of infrastructure expense, the Applicant has worked with staff and the Board to secure findings of fact that provide security in terms of realizing the development potential of the C1-LR area. Most importantly, height waivers allowing up to four stories over podium
parking, and setback waivers allowing buildings to be adjacent and fronting on planned streets. We understand that these findings are possible and are working toward providing the information needed to secure them.
B. Overview of Current Development Concept: Conversations with the Board at Preliminary Plat, and with staff leading up to this submission, have focused on creating a sense of place for the C1-LR development. Creating a destination, specifically for residents of the Project, but also for the adjacent communities. Initial concepts for the C1-LR development have for various reasons struggled to achieve a dynamic and pedestrian oriented plan that would satisfy both the Applicant and Staff, and feedback on previous plans has focused on this goal.
It is always the goal of new development to engage with its adjacent streets and all City ordinances encourage this. However, the Project site has some exceptional topography. While past iterations of plans have tried to connect the site to the corner of Kennedy Drive
and Kimball Avenue, there are 2 stories of grade change between these areas, and the impacts to the design of the interior of the site when placing a building on that corner are fairly stark, creating large central parking areas with no dynamic nature and without room for additional
buildings and circulation. The newly proposed concept focuses on creating a sense of place within the project and moves building’s interior to the site and parking to the outside, in certain limited locations. And which as shown at Exhibit 015 cannot be seen from adjacent
streets. We believe that this configuration is very successful. As outlined at Exhibit 016, the key component of the new lot configuration is the pedestrian
corridor that runs from east to west through a newly proposed four-way intersection midway between Old Farm Road, and O’Brien Farm Road. This corridor includes a two-way drive aisle and angled parking in front of shops and residences. The vision for this streetscape is conceptualized in a packet attached for your review at Exhibit 015. Some representative imagery is also included on the conceptual site plan at Exhibit 016. In general, this drive aisle would be geared toward a pedestrian experience, walkways, seating areas, unique lighting, benches, planters and seat walls, art, and storefront architecture. A central plaza with a retail space or restaurant could house an ice cream shop, or other seasonal display items and create
a real destination for the neighborhood. This plan provides significant building frontage along major roadways within the project,
including Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road extension, placing parking in the rear. It also provides a transitional residential townhome structure, which allows the project to shift from the now-proposed residential single-family area, to the more intense development
planned on the C1-LR development lots. Character imagery of the type of row homes imagined is provided. The idea would be a structure that is more urban and of greater scale than the homes now proposed, to affect a gradual transition.
As noted on the plan, the concept provided achieves the residential density allowed in the PUD, as well as an appropriate amount of commercial and retail space to create the sense of
place being conceptualized.
6
C. Regulatory Compliance: The zoning regulations in effect for this Project review regulate the placement of parking between a building and a public street. Specifically, they provide that
“Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of the buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building.” However, this Project is not reviewing a single building. The Project is a Planned Unit Development seeking findings of
fact that apply to the PUD as a conceptual development plan for the site. Seeking to develop the site in a cohesive fashion across the entirety of the 100 acres. The zoning regulations at Section 14/06(B)(2)(c) go on to state: “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 of the width of all the buildings located at the building line.” The conceptual plan provided meets this test. The total lineal footage of buildings along planned public roads in the C1-LR area is nearly three times the lineal footage of parking shown. Exhibit 213 is a parking frontage plan, that demonstrates the conceptual widths provided. As coverage is viewed holistically, we also believe that parking to building width can and should be viewed holistically. The Applicant is suggesting a finding of fact be
incorporated into the permit conditions to solidify this review methodology for future applications. A potential finding of fact could read as follows:
The Board finds that compliance with Section 14.06(B)(2) shall be reviewed holistically
within the C1-LR district, and that the building and parking frontages shown are permitted within the PUD. Future applications may deviate in building or parking frontage by no more
than 25% on any given street frontage, provided that the total building and parking frontages remain in compliance with Section 14.06(B)(2).
D. Framework for Evaluation of Future Applications: The Applicant has provided a design guide at Exhibit 018 of this submittal. That design guide outlines key characteristics of the development planned for the C1-LR area. The design guide provides standards for primary
and secondary facades. A primary façade is considered to be any façade facing a pedestrian way, or public street. A secondary façade faces a parking area that is not a primary pedestrian way. The design guide provides an easy-to-understand chart of permitted building and site plan characteristics, which are proposed to be approved in the PUD, by the Board, as applicable standards against which future development proposals will be judged. Highlights of this guide include: i. Building height of 1.5 stories minimum and 5 stories over podium parking maximum.
ii. Front setback of 5’. iii. Minimum first floor glazing height of 7.5’ for non-residential use. iv. Minimum of 30% façade to be glazing.
v. Minimum step back of 12’ for fifth story over podium parking. This design guide would lock in place these key characteristics of development, providing the
security discussed at section 5(A) above. In addition to the design guide, the Applicant also believes it is fair and necessary for the
Board to establish some overall project design parameters and goals against which future applications may be reviewed. While the concept plan provided is one potential site layout, there also are additional site layouts that could achieve the same end. Below please find a list
of review criteria proposed that would be used as the basis for evaluating future proposals and deviations from the concept layout provided.
7
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 landscape and building architecture provide an urban, pedestrian-oriented design aesthetic in accordance with character imagery submitted at Exhibit 015 and Exhibit 016. 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 and parking frontage deviates by no more the 25% from the
conceptual distances provided on any given side/street frontage at Exhibit 213. This framework is of course a suggestion, and we will look forward to discussing the
particulars with the Board and Staff, such that we can finalize these criteria and put in place this framework for moving forward.
There are of course numerous additional items in our original Application to discuss, but the above represent the items where feedback has already been provided and changes to the Project are proposed in response. We look forward to discussing this project with you in September. Thank you. Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development
Enclosures