HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (14)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 14, 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:
We are pleased to bring forward for your review the Final Plat application for the “Eastview” Subdivision, previously approved by Preliminary Plat SD-20-40 issued by the Development Review Board on August 31, 2021 (the “Preliminary Plat”). The “Project” as referenced herein is defined as the
Planned Unit Development of 102.6 acres of land, located in the R1-PRD, R12, C1-LR and IC zoning districts in the City of South Burlington, with a total development density of 452 dwelling units (excluding any applicable inclusionary or affordable bonus units) adjacent to Kimball Avenue, Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, to create a neighborhood consisting of 155 for-sale single family, duplex and triplex structures, located throughout several residential development lots, adjacent to newly planned municipal infrastructure, the construction of several dedicated open space lots and public and private recreation facilities, the subdivision of 10 development lots located in the C1-LR zoning district and 8 development lots located in the IC zoning district, as well as other improvements shown on the plans submitted and procedural waivers sought and issued within the framework of a PUD, under the zoning regulations in effect at the time of this Preliminary Plat, dated May 12, 2003, with amendments effective July 27, 2020 (the “Regulations”).
This Application for Final Plat includes all information required by Appendix E of the Regulations, as well as additional information required in the Preliminary Plat. The application narrative
which follows is provided in order of the Preliminary Plat decision for ease of reference. Applicable excerpts of the Preliminary Plat are provided with screen shots of the text of the decision, and information and responses regarding the current application are provided thereafter. Please note that there are areas
where we are requesting reconsideration of certain items, or minor changes to wording of items in the Preliminary Plat. Rather than listing these separately, we felt it made the most sense to discuss them in the order of that decision. Lastly, we have also included a brief narrative discussion at the beginning of
this application regarding changes to the plans unrelated to the Preliminary Plat findings, but necessary for the Project. I. Update on General Project and Changes Since Preliminary Plat As outlined below, there have been a number of modifications to the Project plans responsive to Board feedback. However, there have also seen some modifications that are the result of Applicant
2
finalizing the project plans and meeting with other regulators including State agencies. The primary changes to the Project that were not previously contemplated include:
1. Removal of stormwater treatment practice from the north side of Kimball Ave and addition of new gravel wetlands to replace this treatment practice.
2. Reconfiguration of the Dog Park Area. 3. Removal of existing home at 100 Old Farm Road.
In preparing to file for State permits, the Applicant completed archeological assessments in all Project areas. The area north of Kimball Avenue, where stormwater treatment was proposed turned out to be archeologically significant. Given this, the Applicant needed to reconfigure and relocate the stormwater treatment practice from that location to another location within the Project. The Applicant spent significant time trying to identify suitable locations for such a large treatment practice. From a grade perspective, the suitable place was on the south side of Kimball Avenue, at the intersection with Old Farm Road. A practice of sufficient size in this location effectively
eliminated the ability to put a building on the corner of Kimball and Old Farm Road. For this reason, the Applicant has split the system into two separate ponds. One located on Lot 26 at the intersection of Kimball and Old Farm Road, and one located on Lot 24 at the intersection of Old Farm Road and O’Brien
Farm Road. This change is consequential to the plan; however, the Applicant was able to reconfigure the lot plans such that development can still occur around these stormwater ponds in a way that feels intentional and is aesthetically pleasing. Conceptual development plans for lot 26 are provided, and 3-
story homes are proposed facing the stormwater pond on Lot 24, served by an Alley. A half-circle walkway is used to connect Lot 24 and Lot 19, and extensive plantings are provided to bring this area to life. With the grade rising and the single-family area perched above on the hill, it feels like a nice
transition from the C1-LR district to the R1. A digital rendering of this area is provided at Exhibit 043. Another consequence of archeological sensitivity was the area of the planned dog park. The
Applicant has changed the shape of the fencing and at the direction of the State Archaeologist slightly reduced the size of the park to avoid sensitive archeological areas closer to Kimball Avenue. We believe this change has not impacted the functionality of the park, which is still rather large and laid out in accordance with our conversations with the City Dog Park Committee. The Applicant is meeting with that committee again in May, to go over the proposed changes. Lastly, shortly after the Applicant purchased the home at 100 Old Farm Road weather events caused the pipes to burst and flooded the home, causing extensive damage and ruining the existing and
antiquated mechanical system. Rather than rebuild the home in its exact location, the Applicant felt that it was an opportunity to transition into the new neighborhood. The Applicant has placed a small cluster of cottage homes in this location, sitting atop an attractive stone wall, with common landscaping, front
porches and plantings facing Old Farm Road. We believe this to be an improvement to the design that offers a higher level of cohesiveness to the neighborhood, and look forward to the Board’s review. Digital renderings of this area are provided at Exhibit 043.
II. Review and Analysis of Each Item in the Preliminary Plat Decision
The below addresses the Preliminary Plat permit findings in order. Screenshots of the text of the decision are provided, and are immediately followed with narrative responses to each request. We have
tried our best to comply with every request exactly as noted in the Preliminary Plat permit, however in some instances we are asking the Board to consider slight modifications.
3
The updated Phasing Plan is provided as an exhibit to this application. The text of Phase 4, the soil stockpile and fill area has been amended to include this requested language.
The Updated traffic study is attached to this application. It includes the traffic engineer addressing the items enumerated in the Preliminary Plat related to Section 15.18A(3). Specifically:
It should be noted that the turn lane on Old Farm Road is no longer required or proposed per the
updated TIA, this recommendation was removed as a result of the changes to the TIA done at the request of the Board and its consultant during preliminary plat. Specifically, the turn lane on Old Farm Road is not needed because the LOS for that intersection moves to LOS D in a full build scenario when the Tilley
connector is built; an assumption that was made in consultation with the Board and the third-party review. Also, no signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road was ever proposed or discussed and no signal warrant is anticipated at any point by the Project engineer. Therefore, these items are not included. The
executive summary in the TIA attached at Exhibit 010 includes a list of improvements proposed. Old Farm Road traffic calming measures for pedestrian purposes are discussed at length in a memorandum from Corey Mack, PE at WCG, titled “Eastview PUD at O’Brien Farm: Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Review.” Specifically, Page 3 of the report analyzes appropriate traffic calming measures. Recommendations of the report are implemented on the pavement marking plans provided in the exhibits for this application. The report provides a very useful figure at page 11, which lays out all of the pedestrian walkways in the site, the surface materials, as well as the location of traffic calming measures, RRFBs, and other items. Please see that figure for additional details.
4
This phrase has been removed from the updated phasing plan as requested.
The applicant has adjusted the phasing plan to accommodate this methodology where possible.
Previous iterations of the phasing plan, reviewed at preliminary plat and approved conceptually, contained triggers that were related to trip ends, as well as triggers related to the construction of development on the IC lands. This requirement from the Board was never discussed at Preliminary Plat.
The requirement does not consider the financial hardship that could ensue from building improvements if homes do not sell due to a recession or market event. If the applicant commits to start by a certain residential zoning permit, and end by a certain permit, it allows for delay if homes are not selling. In the
end, if homes are not selling due to market conditions, the resources to build these amenities simply will not exist, and the need for the amenities will also not exist, as the occupants of those homes will not be living there. The Applicant requests that the Board acknowledge and accommodate that reality in its approval, and that having the amenity construction triggered by a zoning permit threshold, and completed by a zoning permit threshold is an effective, realistic and manageable way to track the completion of phases. Further, Applicant and the board discussed extensively that all the amenities proposed are not tied
solely to the initial residential for sale phase. For instance, Construction of Phase 12, was previously agreed when a certain PM Peak Hour trip number was reached. The intention being that the playground will be built when some commercial development commences, not necessarily tied to residential zoning
permits. These phases that are intended to be built with the C1-LR development cannot and should not be conditioned on residential zoning permits, as that would allow for extensive commercial, office, or other types of development to occur, prior to the obligation to create the open space. This is why it was
proposed as indicated tied to 50% of projected trip ends for that area. This way any development that goes beyond the trip end threshold would be required to provide the park space prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy.
Rather than comply with the strict interpretation of this requirement and propose something that is likely not going to be agreeable with extended durations to allow for market slowdowns, we would
request that the updated triggers and phasing provided on the Project Phasing Plan be reviewed with the above in mind and that we discuss why the board wished to have this condition and how we might structure the phasing triggers to work for both the Board and the Applicant. We believe the phasing plan
attached achieves the goals of the Board as previously discussed and we look forward to speaking with you about it. It is worth reiterating that this is a large, multi-phased and multi-use project where the set aside greenspace, parks and pedestrian amenities, and additional proposed infrastructure are far more extensive than the residential neighborhood alone requires and can support on its own. It is only with the addition of the proposed commercial and mixed-use development that the total amount of amenity and infrastructure investment can be supported or justified, and therefore it needs to be phased accordingly.
5
The construction of Phase 8 is updated to include starting at 30% of zoning permits and being complete by 65% of zoning permits issued. As noted above, we have used zoning permits rather than
time to dictate completion, to account for market slowing events that might prohibit the construction of improvements. Time passing does not in fact require improvements, but construction of the project does. It seems fair that improvements be conditioned on construction and not time. Connection to O’Brien
Farm Road is also included as directed.
The Applicant has triggered Phase 14, Potash Road, the former I/C Road, to be built concurrently with the first zoning permit issued. The Applicant has triggered the O’Brien Farm Road extension to be built concurrently with the first zoning permits issued for Lot 27-30 and complete prior to the certificate
of occupancy for that development. Again, elapsed time is not a sufficient means to test whether an improvement should be completed, and here we have tied the completion to the CO for the development that it serves. Applicant maintains that it may also be built prior, as it will also be required prior to construction of units 24-1 to 24-4, and units 31-13 to 31-26 that are all now proposed for construction. But the road will not be required until development in the C1-LR commences, as noted in this condition and on the updated phasing plan.
The updated phasing plan included with this application includes the entirety of the Kimball Avenue Recreation Path, and ties it to the phases that are adjacent in a logical fashion that will complete the rec path in sequence with adjacent development.
The updated phasing plan includes all Old Farm Road improvements. They are included in the phase to which they are adjacent. For instance, the parallel parking adjacent to Meadow Loop will be
bonded for and completed with the Meadow Loop phase. The sidewalk in front of the Lot 32 homes will be built with those homes, etc.
The Applicant has included the connection in Phase 2 of the updated phasing plan provided. The Applicant believes that the necessary site plan amendments to the Hillside Master Plan can be procured
simultaneous with the construction of Eastview and should not be required prior to allowing construction to commence on Eastview. The applicant would request that the Board account for the need to receive
6
separate site plan approvals in its findings and not delay or tie Eastview to those permits issuing. Those permits could prove time consuming to receive, or even potentially be appealed. It should be noted that
the City has not yet assumed control of Two Brothers Drive. The construction of these improvements is currently proposed on land deeded to the Hillside HOA, as O’Brien Brothers has sold enough units that they no longer control this development.
This means that the construction of these improvements may require the consent of the HOA, or the formal adoption by the City of the roadway, such that it may allow this work in its right of way.
While we believe all parties will be happy to see this additional connectivity, we would request that our final plat allow for this process to play out, and for the Site Plan amendments required to be attained during construction of Eastview, and that should the HOA not be willing to allow construction, or oppose construction in any way, there will be a separate permit proceeding that is appealed, not this one. The Board would simply condition this permit on us filing a site plan amendment for Hillside to add the path, and constructing the path within one year of the site plan amendment issuing or the City taking ownership of the road and allowing such construction.
Despite early indications from our adjacent property owner that they were amenable to the construction of the non-vehicular connection to Tilley Drive mentioned in this condition, the Applicant has not been able to secure written approval and easement to complete this work. Applicant has made its best effort to assume all cost and responsibility for this connection, but this was not enough. Unfortunately, this connection cannot be included in our proposal, as it is not on City property and is not on the Applicant’s property, and cannot be required to be built on someone else’s property without permission.
This item was discussed at the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat, as was the conceptual landscape plan provided by the Applicant. The Board agreed with the general methodology proposed at that time of creating clusters of landscaping and berms to create privacy, while providing windows
through for access and connection to the public space at the rear. The Board also specifically indicated they did not feel that having two fronts on these homes was necessary.
The Applicant is unsure if this condition made it to the permit in error, given the conclusive nature of the conversation at Preliminary Plat. That said, in an effort to satisfy this condition and improve the project, the Applicant has modified the plans in this area such that more than 50% of the homes adjacent to the barn lot include a second “front” facing the barn. Specifically, the Applicant has reused the duplex model designed to front on Old Farm Road (accessed from Leo Lane) as that module fit well in the area noted. That fit became more challenging wrapping around the corner, and therefore the road does transition back to single family. However, we believe that this condition (given the feedback provided in the hearings by the Board) is satisfied.
7
The Applicant has amended the design of the Cottage Court at the north of what is now Leo Lane. We have removed one of the six homes to achieve a semi-circle design. Plantings and walkways accentuate the front of the design. A rendering of the homes in this area is provided in the project
exhibits. The Applicant has provided a wrap-around porch on the end units to provide for architectural interest. Landscape plans are provided showing the details of the design. We believe these attractive farmhouse-style cottages are in keeping with the development character and the goals of the city to offer
diverse housing opportunities. The cottages are rendered in one color, and are intended to be built in one color, providing for unity in design.
The architecture of home SF5 has been modified such that the front porch is proud of the garage as requested. See updated architectural exhibit for details.
The planting plans for the project are attached for review. The Applicant has offered extensive
plantings in the area of reference by the NRCC. However, the Applicant was also asked to include a duplicative path in this area adjacent to the rec path, as well as to include an east-west recreation path connection. The Applicant has done its best to create the green corridor discussed, while also
accommodating these requests of the Board which had the effect of reducing the green corridor. The area is more open than it would be if the duplicative path were removed, but we do feel that the area is meeting the design intent, and will represent a nice green buffer and wildlife corridor.
8
The details of internal connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles are laid out in full detail in a memorandum from Corey Mack, PE at WCG, titled “Eastview PUD at O’Brien Farm: Bicycle and
Pedestrian Infrastructure Review” the “Pedestrian Report.” This memorandum not only analyzes the usefulness and need for the connections, but specifies what each connection should be, it reviews and makes recommendations for crosswalk locations, wayfinding signs, bike rack locations, path types and
locations, ADA parking locations and more. The full details of the recommendations are included in text, but a useful graphic for reviewing those recommendations is included at page 11 of the report. The Applicant has worked with the site civil and roadway engineers as well as the landscape architect to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Report, and believes that by doing so, it has satisfied the connectivity and design issues outlined in this requirement. The next section of the Decision pertains to Applicants requests related to the C1-LR
development lots. Currently the Applicant is proposing 10 development lots in the C1-LR. These lots are framed by public infrastructure, bike and pedestrian connectivity and roadways. The intention is to form development which fronts on the roadways adjacent, with parking located to the side and rear (rear being
determined by the street with less traffic, as many of these lots have two street-facing sides. The Applicant is proposing details within a framework, such that future development can proceed lot-by-lot, with the security of height waivers that are necessary to achieve the density and vision of this area that the
Board has made clear.
The applicant has shown the board conceptual designs that are not final designs and are not proposed designs. These designs can and will change. They must be able to change as the uses for these
lots are unknown and will be market driven. A regulatory plan is provided that creates a framework the Applicant will agree to follow in exchange for certain waivers granted. That plan, which is attached as Exhibit 015 of this application, includes items such as required road frontage, maximum setbacks, parking
garage access locations, and other key pieces of information that can be known and confirmed at this time. To address this request of the board for two green spaces, one in each block, the applicant has included on the regulatory plan a green circle indicating the total square footage of community amenity
proposed for each block. These amenities could be consolidated or spread out, but the Applicant is proposing to include .5 acres of community amenity space in each block of the C1-LR. In an effort to demonstrate how this development plan might work in one scenario, the Applicant has produced a new conceptual rendering for this area. As you will see in the concepts provided, the applicant has provided a range of commercial opportunities, both in small scale (3,000-5,000sqft) and
9
larger scale (18,000sqft) formats. We have provided for footprints that could accommodate hotel use, residential use, or senior use, and footprints which could accommodate office use. A true mixed-use
development, in line with the district goals.
I want to again point out that the renderings provided are conceptual and are not the only way to achieve the standards set forth in the regulating plan. The Board should review the regulatory plan attached at Exhibit 015 and the Design Guide at Exhibit 018, and discuss this concept in light of that plan.
The plan proposes primary facades, and it also proposes required frontage for buildings per lot. Reducing the dominance of parking goes hand in hand with requiring building frontage on streets. While buildings may not always be available, Applicant would also propose alternatives where walls or other structures
may be used to screen parking and frame the pedestrian experience, masonry walls of 4’ height are specifically allowed to qualify as building frontage in the design guide, and could therefore be used to screen parking. In the concepts shown, we believe that the parking is not a dominant feature.
We have provided concepts that we believe achieve this. This particular requirement seems like it could also be added to the design objectives of the regulatory plan if necessary. In the concepts you can see that we have used decks, stairs, and green spaces to achieve this.
We believe that the conceptual plan provided achieves both of these objectives. Structured parking at street level is noted in the design guide to be allowed only where basement and lower-level stories are exposed due to grade. The design characteristics, building breaks, glazing, etc., and other
design elements of the regulatory plan provide for unifying features as noted here.
To demonstrate that we will promote this mix of uses, the Applicant has provided conceptual designs that show the development site “types,” available. While we do not know the particular users that
will eventually locate on the Eastview site, we do know the general market requirements for those types of users, and the construction that their market pro-forma can tolerate. We know for instance that a grocer is unlikely to be able to be in a building built over a parking garage (how many of you have been
in a grocery store that was not a slab on grade in the state of Vermont?). We also know that small scale restaurants and retail stores do well in groups so that there is a mutual attraction and so providing ample opportunity for smaller scale development makes this more viable. We know that office construction,
residential multi-family and hotel construction can include underground parking as well as street-level commercial space, and so lots where grading requires such, are likely to be used by those types of end users. With all of this knowledge, we have created conceptual layouts that accommodate all of these characteristics and provided them to the Board for review. By showing that we can accommodate the lot
10
conditions conducive to this mix of users, we have demonstrated the mix will be promoted, as required in this condition.
The creation of the neighborhood that the Board, staff, the Applicant and the Comprehensive Plan envisions here requires the establishment of the framework the Applicant seeks to put in place, the waiver
of large setbacks, and the allowance for buildings to be four stories over podium parking (five stories from the below side) as are currently being permitted in the Phase I Hillside Master Plan. We know this because in analyzing the conceptual build-out, we have found space to accommodate all of the user types
listed in this decision criterion, while simultaneously accommodating the residential base density that creates the demand. The height waivers requested allow for the apartment, senior housing and hotel elements, and create space on site for single or two-story structures that will be primarily commercial in nature on flat portions of the site.
The Applicant has provided pavement marking plans as requested here in the exhibits to this application. The drop off loop has been removed from the plans. The cul-de-sac shown we believe complies with the necessary department of public works and fire department guidelines. Please see
attached plans for details.
The “Design Guide” for the C1-LR lot development has been updated in this final plat and is
attached to this application as Exhibit 018. The Design Guide does in fact distinguish between primary and secondary facades. There is a hatched area entitled “Primary Building Line,” on the regulatory framework. If the frontage is adjacent to a Primary Building Line, it is a “Primary Façade,” per the Design Guide. The Design Guide aligns with the primary facades listed in this condition and also includes O’Brien Farm Road as a primary façade. Secondary facades are intended to face other buildings or parking areas. We believe this is in keeping with the intentions of the Board, and that the Board would not want secondary façade standards to apply on O’Brien Farm Road, which is the main street facing buildings on Lot 21, 25, and 28. However we can amend this plan if required. Given that this finding indicates no façade standards are needed adjacent to other lots or parking areas, the secondary façade guidelines are removed altogether from the regulatory plan.
The Design Guide plan shows where it is anticipated that underground parking may be visible on primary frontages. These areas are known because the Road network is being proposed and the grades of the road dictate the building layouts possible on the lots. This visibility is a necessity for the site grading
11
and building construction. This exposure can take many forms. In Hillside, we have seen the exposure treated with glazing, we have seen the exposure completely sealed in with brick and treated with
decorative grates, and we have also seen attractive building entrances as well as community spaces. All of these treatments remain available in this design guide, and the parking line is only meant to demonstrate that in any scenario due to site grading if a building is proposed to front where the parking
line is located, that frontage will by necessity of grade be a partially underground story, which are generally not habitable and would therefore be parking.
This request of the board seeks to also identify areas of surface parking that will be exposed. The Design Guide identifies areas where building frontage is proposed. If the frontage overlaps with a blue line, the frontage is anticipated to be exposed parking garage. Any road frontage that is not building frontage is anticipated to be exposed parking, set behind the building line. This is simply the reality of this site, that there are large parking lots to facilitate the uses, which are nestled to the sides and rear of the buildings, per the requirements of the regulations. The maximum frontage to be parking is therefore all frontage that is not a primary building
façade, plus any primary building façade frontage that overlaps with the blue parking line. Of course, the frontage where the parking lines are drawn may not read like parking, it may be glazing or closed off openings, and if the Board would like, we can develop some standards for screening of parking as part of
this permit proceeding. Please also note that whether it is parking or building, all residential buildings must have two entrances on the primary façade.
The Project has analyzed this request in the Pedestrian Report and provided the traffic calming and stop control measures that are supported by the MUTCD guidelines for this intersection. The pavement marking plans indicate what is proposed. The four-way stop control mentioned in this finding is not proposed, because the Pedestrian Report indicates it is contrary to MUTCD guidelines. If with that information the Board would still like this stop control installed, we would look for that confirmation at our hearing. The raised pedestrian crossing, as well as an RRFB are proposed, per the recommendations
of the Pedestrian Report.
The Applicant has removed this line as directed.
The Applicant has provided a hand drawn concept sketch which includes conceptual landscape between the recreation path and buildings. This buffer is intended to contain some tree plantings and landscaping. It is largely to transition grade from Kimball Avenue to the Project. Each of the large buildings proposed in this project will have a significant landscape budget that can be used in this area to
12
further the design goals of projects proposed. Some types of uses may want to engage the street more than others and we can certainly provide walkways down the hill to the recreation path on Kimball
Avenue.
The Applicant has provided a design guide with specific elements intended to create a high-quality street presence. The intent of the guide is to allow certainty for the waivers requested by defining what a high-quality street presence means. This finding is contrary to certainty created by the design
guide and negates the purpose of the design guide altogether. The Applicant would request that the Board provide feedback as to any elements missing from the design guide, that would contribute to a high-quality street presence, and that we add those to the guide, and eliminate this open-ended condition. This
project could develop over 10-15 years. But the investment in roads and infrastructure is happening now. The Board, planning concepts and City staff, the political favor of these projects could shift, and with so much being requested to be front loaded in the phasing plan, it is reasonable to seek certainty on the waivers that will enable the applicant to fund those investments.
The Applicant has amended the design guide to include the 2-story minimum noted here. The Applicant wishes to confirm that in the case of a retailer like a small grocery, for example, a faux story similar to what is on Trader Joes, would be sufficient. Also, the applicant wishes to confirm that the
required step back is applicable if a building is more the four stories on the street-facing façade, not the parking lot façade. The structures currently proposed in the Hillside Master Plan would be an example, a building of that type would be allowed, any taller, and the step backs would be required.
The design guide is amended to include this standard requested by the Board.
13
The design guide is amended to include this standard requested by the Board.
The design guide is amended to include this standard requested by the Board.
The Project plans have been amended to include an east west pedestrian connection between the R1 and IC districts that is accessible to non-motor vehicle, non-pedestrian traffic as required. See the Project civil site plans, project landscape plan and the Pedestrian Report for further details. The homes located on Mabel Way, which frame this pedestrian connection have been pushed apart to ensure a very clear break for the path between homes, to provide a view corridor, and to accommodate the condition referenced above.
The IC Road has been extended to the property line as shown in the Project Plans. Barn Road, former “Legacy Farm Road” extension has been extended in the Project plans as
required here. However, the Applicant is requesting that the DRB grant an exception to this extension in some fashion, to allow for the coverage to be removed from the project. Currently the Applicant is barely below the allowable coverage for the R1 district. This road extension, and the jog in the recreational path
on Old Farm Road combine to add nearly 5000 square feet of coverage to the Project without a use or change in usability. The Applicant would request reconsideration in both instances such that coverage can be reduced to being well below the required maximum allowing more flexibility in the future. Here,
the regulations explicitly allow the Applicant to pay a fee in lieu of extending the infrastructure, providing the City with the funds necessary to extend the road when it is required, but not detracting from much needed housing and supporting pedestrian amenities that can better use that coverage in the near term. While it may be suggested that the Applicant remove homes from the project plans if the Applicant is uncomfortable with coverage, the Applicant would point out that the removal of one home will mean only 154 homes are proposed, and will reduce the inclusionary requirement by one unit. Therefore, removing an affordable housing unit from the development. This seems contrary to the City’s
14
stated goals to advance affordable housing, and seems like a dire consequence for a few feet of pavement that serve no purpose as it is a dead end that could easily just be extended when the adjacent roadway is
built.
The Applicant has included a 60’ ROW in this location on the Project plans as required. However, the Applicant is requesting reconsideration of this requirement. The Applicant and the Development Review Board never discussed this proposed right of way in the Preliminary Plat Hearings. Had the issue been raised, the Applicant would have pointed out that the entire development concept
proposed, creates development fronting on Kimball Avenue and now Potash Road, such that parking may be located behind the buildings and away from the public way. This is in compliance with the parking standards of the city. Lot 45 and 46 are designed such that they can share parking with the lots fronting on
Potash Road, and still comply with the Parking standards. Introduction of this ROW, will require the buildings on Lot 45 and 46 be placed at the lot lines with Lot 41-44, rendering the two rear lots fundamentally unusable and eliminating the potential conceptual layouts that we have offered as proof of
concept. While it is true that 15.12(D)(2) requires this to be a public street, it is also true that 15.12(D)(3)
allows the DRB to make the roadway private if “the proposed roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD.” Here we have exactly that, and the Board clearly has the authority to make the road private. If the Board is not willing to allow this, the Applicant
considers a new lot configuration will be required to ensure the rear lots are usable. This ROW seems entirely unnecessary as a new dead end city street, and serves only as an access to two industrial lots. The intent here was to have a private access so that the lots could fulfil their industrial purposes, while sheltered from the public way, not to introduce a public way into the middle of a commercial access and parking area. We hope the Board can reconsider this requirement and accept a private access easement in lieu of the requested right of way.
The Project plans include an easement across this lot. It is unclear where this easement is meant to go, or what the Board is looking for the applicant to do. The lot is not proposed for any development, it is a wetland, and what little dry land is there, is a State designated sensitive archeological area. If the easement drawn is incorrect, the Applicant would request the Board simply provide details on where it should be placed and we will move it. No development is planned and therefore the easement can run wherever the Board wishes.
15
Details for underground utilities are provided. Please note that we have provided typical landscape plans for transformer locations shown, rather than indicating plantings on all sheets.
A resident club is no longer proposed and has been replaced with a park space. The Applicant assumes that trash in this public facility and at other planned public facilities, the Dog Park, the Lot 19
play area, the Playground, will be managed by the Department of Public Works.
Detailed landscape plans are provided for review by the Board. These plans include detailed planting specifications. We believe the plans comply with the requirements of the LDR’s and we look
forward to the Boards review.
The Applicant has updated its projected cost for the development in line with current market trends, using a blended square foot cost, as well as an average unit size, determined by the Applicant in its financial modeling for the project. The total expected direct construction cost used to calculate the
required landscape amount is just short of $53,000,000. The required landscape amount is
,$
Total Number Of Homes Proposed 155
Total Project Construction Cost 52,700,000.00$
First $250,000 Required Landscape 3%7,500.00$
Second $250,000 Required Landscape 2%5,000.00$
Remaing Cost Required Landscape 1%522,000.00$
Total Required Landscaping 534,500.00$
Per Unit Landscape Requirement 3,448.39$
16
The Applicant has provided a landscaping budget for the project as required attached as Exhibit 042. As demonstrated on the budget, the Project will spend more than the required landscape amount by
about 50% or $282,000. The nature of the Project proposed is such that large investments in parks, roadways, connectivity and green space are being made during the initial construction phase of 155 dwelling units, that will be utilized more (because there will be many more households and much
commercial demand) by construction not yet proposed on the 18 development lots being created in the PUD. The Applicant is investing in open spaces, walkways, parks, and recreational areas to serve the whole PUD as well as the broader City, since parks are proposed to be public, and front loading that
investment because the initial phase involves much of the land that is set aside for overall PUD open spaces and building the spaces out simultaneous with the development adjacent to them is the right thing to do from the Applicant’s perspective. To calculate the cost of the landscaping proposed, the Applicant has provided an estimate only for the plantings that are required to be built with the 155 residential units, per the phasing plan agreed at Preliminary Plat. Areas outside of the red line on the landscape drawings are not triggered by the 155 residential units alone, and therefore are not counted in this budget. Landscaping in those areas, will be
proposed to be counted as the required landscape for the development that triggers the construction. The plans are provided for some context as to what is planned, but trees outside the red line are not included in the estimate because they are not required by the buildings now proposed and are in areas where
construction will likely not touch/commence until additional uses are permitted. Rather than try to pair back the landscape plan that is $282,000 over the requirement for the land
and areas included, which still includes three large open spaces dedicated to use by the broader PUD, the Applicant is requesting that excess landscape dollars be available to the PUD for use in future phases. That is to say, the Applicant can make use of investments on items like the Lot 19 open space and
playground for the future development proposal on Lot 21 or Lot 17 which will both use that open space (as an example). In this way the Applicant can ensure that the full investment made in the community landscape is available for application to required landscape amounts and can justify the expense of
building these spaces prior to the development that requires them. The Applicant would request that rather than being discretionary, this excess landscaping be allocated on a square foot basis across the development lots proposed. The effect would be to reduce the required landscape amount for the 10 C1-LR lots, and the 8 IC development lots by their % share of the total acreage of the 18 development lots included in the PUD where no development is currently proposed. The total acreage of these development lots is 39.8 acres. The requested allocation of excess landscaping is $7,085/acre. This is a modest reduction in landscaping required, that the Applicant will
not realize the benefit of for over a decade as this Project is developed, while the landscape plantings will be installed in the initial construction phase. In the many years to come political change or changes in the Board could certainly impact future application of these investments, and we believe this modest credit is
something the Board can and should grant now to solidify the plan being proposed. As the Board has seen, large developments on small lots often struggle to fit their required landscape anyway. Lot 13 and Lot 15 in Phase I of Hillside sits on about 5 acres, and has a required budget of roughly the same as all
155 units proposed here. There is a fundamental imbalance that this allocation would help correct and it is only fair to ensure credit for early investments made.
The Applicant believes in the value of creating these green spaces, and believes in the value of landscaping for public enjoyment, but we must be pragmatic in the impacts of such construction and frontloaded investment. The parks, plantings and open space proposed in the Project are well beyond
what is reasonably required for 155 dwelling units. Neighborhoods in the City of significantly more scale have far fewer parks and open spaces than what is proposed here.
17
The Project is proposing a large and well landscaped natural playground with a tree fort and ground level slide, a dog park over 1 acre in size, a large playground with play equipment for toddlers and
bigger kids, and with 8 swings, multiple slides and structures, including an ADA adaptable swing, a picnic pavilion and landscaped park overlooking the Green Mountains with a seasonal sledding hill and ice rink, a large play field for soccer or other open space recreational activities, and a one-mile long
programmed fitness loop with seven fitness stations, bike racks, and landscaping. The combined cost of these elements is not required landscaping and are not being counted or requested for this future allocation. The Applicant’s request here is merely to allow the cost of plants installed in the PUD be
allowed to apply in the future to the development lots that they are funded by, and ensure that the Applicant can capture the benefit of those early investments when future development is proposed.
Applicant waiver request 1 pertained to the commercial lots. Specifically, it requested a height
waiver of 60’ in the entire C1-LR zoning district area. Applicant considers that this waiver is an integral part of the C1-LR design guide discussion earlier in the application, and is looking forward to confirming this item.
Waiver request 2-10 pertained to setback waivers throughout the residential development. The Applicant agrees with the Board that the waiver request was complicated and would be difficult to administer. In reviewing how best to simplify this request, the applicant believes that the suggestion of staff is correct, that the Board is approving the plans and therefore the setbacks shown. Should a finding by the Board be needed, we suggest stating: “The Board finds that the development program presented including footprint lots shown is
approved, and that minimum setbacks to structures will be as shown on the project plans, except that in no case will the minimum setbacks to a structure be less than five feet.”
The Applicant would add that a secondary condition is needed to address the setback of the triplex structures to Old Farm Road. The Board must find that the setbacks shown are approved, assuming the ROW line is adjusted as noted in the Project plans. As noted in the Preliminary Plat
hearings, the ROW must be moved to create a setback greater than 5’ for the triplexes shown. This work is all assumed to be happening as part of the relocation of Old Farm Road. Necessary legal paperwork for the easement change is provided in the legal exhibits.
The Applicant believes that these waiver requests will be granted if the design guide presented and included in this application is approved, and will look forward to that discussion.
18
Specifically, the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 3.06l within the PUD. The Applicant
is still requesting this waiver. That section of the LDR is below:
There are numerous places in the Project where non-residential development is plausible within 50’ of a residential district, and where a required setback increase of 65 feet would be incredibly problematic and counterintuitive. Areas including the entire downhill side of O’Brien Farm Road
Extension. The Applicant is asking the Board, is there a place inside the borders of the PUD being proposed, where the Board feels a 65’ buffer with a 15-foot-wide evergreen hedge is appropriate? The answer is very clearly no, and so it seems that this requirement can be waived within the PUD.
This waiver is being requested for flower beds that are touching the foundation of a home. Not street trees, or site trees, or hedges, or other large landscape installations. That is to say, if the Applicant has planted a $1000 flower bed (or whatever the amount may be) in front of a home as part of satisfaction
for its landscaping requirement, that the homeowner not be obligated in-perpetuity to maintain that bed. The flower beds touching foundations are permitted to be “customized” in the homeowner association documents. They are “limited common elements,” for the personal enjoyment of residents. While the
Board and City should acknowledge the cost of these plantings are real landscape dollars, common sense would seem to say that allowing a homeowner to be able to plant a hydrangea next to their front porch in place of a lilac plant installed at the time of construction potentially 30 years earlier, as this is written to
last forever, should not be a violation of any permit, and should be allowed. Meaning, owners can be free to add to the flower beds, or augment them to their personal taste as a benefit to their health and well-being, and without fear of recrimination for zoning violations. The Applicant hopes that the Board will
reconsider this waiver request, and clarify a position on whether homeowners should be allowed the freedom to plant flowers and edit the flower beds touching their foundations and front porches. There is an exemption in the rules for single family lots for a reason, and just because technically these are not
lots, physically and realistically, they function like single family lots, and the impact of enforcing this rule
19
is the same. The same impact the drafters hoped to avoid for these types of homes with the exclusion encoded. The Board can correct this oversite of footprint lot developments and we appreciate your
consideration.
In a single-family home on its own lot, if an owner wanted to redo the roof on their porch and potentially change the roof angle or aesthetic, and screen in the porch at the same time, they would file a zoning permit on one piece of paper and it would issue. In this PUD, the Applicant wants to make sure
the permits allow similar flexibility. The Applicant is worried that since a change to roofline or structure is not shown in the plans presented, a PUD amendment could be required. The Applicant is merely requesting a procedural waiver to ensure that the administrative officer can have the authority to approve and deny requests pertaining to converting decks shown on the proposed elevations to covered decks and three season rooms. This seems fairly straightforward, and will simply reduce the complexity and administration of these requests.
At the time the Eastview Preliminary Plat was submitted, the Applicant also submitted a Master Plan application. The Applicant had extensive conversations with staff regarding whether the Master Plan application was needed, and what benefits the Master Plan conveyed that a PUD finding could not also convey. The definitive answer and outcome of those meetings was that there is not, under the rules in effect for this Application, any major finding a Master Plan conveys that a Preliminary Plat cannot also
convey. As outlined extensively in our narrative for Preliminary Plat, having both a Master Plan and overall PUD, simply creates another permit to amend whenever anything changes. We have all seen this in Hillside where we keep needing to amend the Master Plan for minor lot adjustments or other items.
The Applicant filed a complete Master Plan application and withdrew it, after this conversation with staff. The highlights of what was discussed with staff, were included at pages four and five of the Preliminary Plat narrative.
Given this conversation, we are surprised to hear that the Board and staff believe a process waiver is not allowed within a PUD approval. This is particularly surprising because the regulations seem to
explicitly allow these process waivers. Please note Section 15.02(B) which states: “For all land development activities meeting these standards, PUD review shall be required unless an application is being made pursuant to specific provisions in a PUD permit issued by the DRB that apply to the land
involved and specify another review procedure.” As acknowledged here, a PUD permit issued by the DRB may in fact grant such waiver. And this only makes sense. Section 15.02A lists the DRB approval authority for a PUD, it includes a provision which states the board may “modify these land development regulations.” It then goes on list what cannot be waived. Process or sketch plan review hearings are not mentioned. While Section 15.07(D)(2) explicitly grants the authority for a process waiver in a Master Plan, it does not take away the authority to grant such in a PUD. Indeed, a Master Plan does not have the authority to modify the regulations that a PUD does, and therefore the Master Plan rules need to qualify the authority provided in a Master Plan. This is entirely separate and distinct from the PUD rules.
20
Applicant would again make a request that the Board consider the three waivers requested, 18-20,
addressed in the above-cited finding of fact.
• Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD, applications for sketch plan review are voluntary on behalf of the Applicant.
• Applicant requests a finding that within a PUD Applicant may file for final plat only for proposed amendments.
• Applicant requests a finding that within a PUD a single structure on a single lot need site plan
review only. These waivers are in no way controversial, and seek only to save staff, the Applicant and the Board time. The Development Review Board is busy facilitating the timely review of projects important for the City. It makes little sense to require the Eastview PUD to have a Sketch Plan meeting, if the Applicant seeks to change a couple of home designs, or amend a piece of play equipment in a park, or alter a few lot lines to facilitate a project. It is just a waste of time and an unnecessary hearing that prevents other business from occurring. We hope the Board will reconsider this decision and the benefits
of creating a simplistic review process.
During the permitting for the multi-family section of Hillside, the Applicant worked extensively with the Public Works department as well as the zoning administrator to develop a letter of credit framework that works in a very efficient manner. The broad outline of that framework is as follows:
• Public Infrastructure Letter of Credit Agreement: Establish one letter of credit agreement.
Administrative Officer and Applicant to establish a spreadsheet outlining the required letter of credit amounts per phase on the Project phasing plan. Use the spreadsheet to track the required letter of credit amounts, and to account for any reductions for work complete. Administrative
officer to confirm that letter of credit agreement is of sufficient amount for currently approved phases, less any reduction for work complete, plus phases proposed for construction, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any public improvements.
• Street Trees: To be included in landscape letters of credit and released per procedure outline for landscape letters of credit.
• Landscape Letters of Credit: The Applicant will work with the Administrative Officer to Develop a tracking spreadsheet to be used for all landscaping installed in Eastview. The Landscape Tracking Spreadsheet will include a cost per plant for each plant in the Project. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any phase, Administrative Officer to confirm the Landscape Letter of Credit has sufficient capacity to for the value of the phase proposed (at the roughly 50% requirement of the regulations), as well as for any ongoing phases. Phases will also include the
cost of street trees. Annually, Administrative Officer and Applicant will inspect the project site and certify plantings
installed in an as-built drawing. Applicant will submit plans and a letter outlining the value of plantings installed. Administrative Officer to reduce the letter of credit after the 3-year warranty
21
period is complete, for plantings certified annually, such that funds are released back to the Applicant within roughly three years of when plants are installed, in line with the intent of the
Regulations. The total bonding amounts required are provided here at Exhibit 042 (for landscape and street trees) and
at Exhibit 008 for public improvements. The Applicant, the Administrative Officer and the Director of Public works can work together to create the spreadsheets and tracking mechanisms prior to issuance of a zoning permit and outside of this Final Plat proceeding. The intent being that the applicant provides a
surety sufficient for each phase started, per the Project phasing plan.
The Applicant appreciates that the Board is not willing to waive this criterion for future
applications on IC lands within the PUD. If the Board is unwilling to waive the criterion, the Applicant would request the Board issue more robust findings regarding the Criterion. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing a heavily landscaped buffer as well as a major roadway between the single-family area and the
industrial lands. The buffer is an approximately 12-acre park that will be deeded to the city. The intention of this buffer is to mitigate the inherent difference and fundamental incongruity between the IC permitted uses and the R1 permitted uses. The Applicant believes that this regulation poses a threat to the future development of the IC lands, and that any future homeowner in Eastview could appeal future IC projects under this test absent clear findings of fact in this permit from the Board as to the intent of the PUD. There is a clear intent to provide a buffer, visual and physical between the R1 and IC lands to transition from residential to industrial use. Findings of fact could solidify this plan, allow for future conversations about creating harmony, if possible, but also make clear that the uses and types of uses on the IC lands are not harmonious with residential development, and that is why they are placed on these lots, separated from
the residential component by a 12-acre park, a roadway, and a landscaped buffer. An example finding could read:
“The Board finds that the Lot 47 Open Space, Potash Road, and the proposed landscaping between the homes on Mabel Way and Barn Road is a sufficient buffer to protect the residential character of the R1 lands in the Project from the impacts of the uses permitted and planned on the IC lands, Lot 40-
46 and Lot 50 which are by nature incongruous with residential use.”
22
There is inherent disharmony here in these districts, and while the Board should and can judiciously enforce this Site Plan requirement as noted, and may certainly take a measured approach to
trying to make harmony between an RV Dealership a Boat Dealership or a Lumber Yard, and a 2000 square foot single family home, the Applicant believes that these permit findings will play a role in ensuring that expectations for development within the PUD are clear to all involved, and that home
buyers are aware of the types of uses that should be expected.
Our engineer has worked to finalize the stormwater and erosion prevention plans in line with this feedback and we look forward to the final review of these items.
23
The applicant has attached preliminary water and wastewater allocations to this application at
Exhibit 012 and Exhibit 013.
Our engineer has worked closely with the water department to address these issues and we
believe that the items are addressed. Of course, we expect significant review of the updated and final drawings, and we are ready and willing to work with the water department to remedy anything noted.
Full erosion prevention and sediment control plans are provided for the Project. The Project will also be issued an Individual Permit, under the State stormwater program, which is more rigorous than the
General permit referenced in this regulation.
24
As noted above, the Project is not proposing a traffic signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm
Road. This was never discussed or proposed by the Project. The Project TIA also no longer includes the installation of a turn lane at Old Farm Road and Hinesburg Road. In the update to the TIA, it was removed as unwarranted. The remaining items are discussed in the updated Traffic Report attached as
Exhibit 10.
The Applicant has addressed this item in the updated traffic study.
The Applicant is proposing to install the turn lanes on Kimball Avenue when the new intersections are connected and opened. As noted in the project phasing schedule, the dedicated turn lane from Kimball to Old Farm will be installed with Phase 8. The dedicated turn lane for the Potash Road
will be installed with Phase 14. It is not economically or practically viable to defer these turn lane installations beyond when the new intersections are built. The intersection improvements are triggered by development and will be bonded for in full and required before additional development will be permitted.
The Applicant considers that no reserve fund is needed as a zoning permit for further development (the development that will necessitate the improvement) will not issue unless the improvement is bonded and built.
The Pedestrian Report provides an extensive analysis of the proposed pedestrian and bike improvements for the project. Figure A of that report locates and provides details for adjacent bus stops.
The Applicant believes this request is met.
25
The Applicant has engaged an expert third party at WCG to analyze and provide complete recommendations for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Their recommend plan is implemented in this final plat. They have proposed two RRFB on Old Farm Road, as well as numerous other pedestrian
safety measures. These recommendations are included in the Project plans. We would welcome the Board and staff to discuss this item further with WCG and we are of course happy to add in more RRFB’s, but given the difference of opinions, we felt it best to allow the Project engineer with the most
familiarity with the Project to make a recommendation.
See Attachment A of the Pedestrian Report for this figure.
The Applicant has provided a phasing plan of when public improvements will be required, the phasing plan is executable and will be bonded for and constructed as indicated in the plan. The Applicant
considers that the phasing plan and bonding satisfy this request of the Board. It is unclear to the Applicant what other information is needed or why reserving funds is
necessary given the provision of bonding for all required improvements already in place. It would seem that an additional reserve of funds is duplicative of providing surety in the form of a letter of credit. Prior to surety being required, an improvement is not required, and therefore the reserve of funds would not be
necessary to ensure an obligation, as the obligation does not exist until the Project triggers it. At the point the Project triggers the improvement, it must be bonded for and completed with the Project. It is not the case that the improvements planned by the Project are unavoidable and we must pay our share (these sorts
of improvements are what impact fees are for). The improvements contemplated in the Project only need to be if the Project triggers them. Therefore, when the Project triggers them they can be required and completed, or the triggering event will simply not be permitted. This is the same system in place at
Hillside, which is working well and where the Applicant has upheld all of its obligations without issue.
This is addressed in the traffic study. The mast locations are demonstrated in a plan provided.
The Applicant does not believe this signal will ever be warranted due to the Project, is not proposing it, and is not proposing to fund it in any way as it is not needed. The plans are provided for the Board as required by the Preliminary Plat, and in no way are a reflection of a Project-based need which has never
been demonstrated.
26
The Project TIA has been updated to reflect accurate projections and to discuss the transit overlay district. The Project does not exceed the threshold of 1675 trips; therefore, no further discussion is included.
Wetlands are shown on all sheets as directed by this finding. Please note that since the
Preliminary Plat an additional Class III wetland has been located on the property. All wetlands are now shown on the Project plans per the recent walk with the State of Vermont verifying all Project delineations. All Class II wetlands in the project are left undisturbed with their full buffer as required by the Regulations. Impacts are being sought in this permit to Class III wetlands. These impacts we believe comply with the requirements for impact in the Regulations. The impacts also qualify for approval under the new rules, recently adopted by the City for Class III wetland protection, though those rules are not in
effect for the Project. The Applicant has spent a significant amount of time reviewing the details of these wetlands and ensuring that the impacts proposed are warranted, allowable, and a net benefit to the project and the environment.
The Class III wetlands specifically proposed for impact are located on the IC lots, and will be impacted by planned stormwater infrastructure Gravel Wetland 7 and Gravel Wetland 8. As part of this
PUD, the Applicant is proposing a subdivision of the IC lands, and the construction of a roadway that is shown on the City’s official map. In planning for this development, the Applicant has sized and located two gravel wetlands where appropriate to treat stormwater anticipated by Potash Road, as well as future
development. The logical locations for this infrastructure are beyond the planned fill (Phase 4 of the Phasing Plan) in the lower areas of the site.
27
The Applicant has prepared an extensive analysis of the functions and values of the two Class III wetlands where impacts are being sought. Any wetland ecologist, including Art Gilman who authored the
letter and Tina Heath, an employee of the State of Vermont, unaffiliated with the Applicant, would agree that the functions of the wetland are limited to those noted on the wetland delineation forms, included at Exhibit 017, which have been approved by the State as accurate. That is to say the sole values present,
are nutrient retention and water storage, both graded with a “low” value. The way in which these wetlands retain nutrients and water, is by capturing the limited amount of runoff from the IC open fields above that drains to them, and holding the water in a grassed depression where it sits because of
impermeable soils until it evaporates or is taken up by the grass. More details on this function are included in the letter at Exhibit 017. As noted at Exhibit 017 by Art Gilman an expert environmental scientist with many years of experience in this field:
“It must be noted in the context of the Development Review Boards decision whether to preserve these areas or to allow for their alteration to become gravel wetlands and ponds for stormwater
treatment, that surrounding these wetlands with development and isolating them from their
already limited watersheds, will remove any water from flowing to them (as water will be diverted to stormwater practices). If these wetlands are not receiving flows of water from their
surroundings, there will be no opportunity for that function even if the physical land that now has
some limited significance remains.”
In other words, the preservation of these wetlands without the preservation of their watershed which is not allowed under the Regulations as it is developable land in the IC district, will not preserve wetlands, but will merely preserve a piece of grass with no further value as the water it was capturing is
now diverted. The sole function these wetlands have is storing runoff from the fields above. Once the fields are developed and all runoff is diverted to state approved stormwater facilities, these will simply be basins of grass with no significance isolated in the middle of a development.
To the contrary, the Gravel Wetlands proposed in their place will have significant functions and values. As noted by Art Gilman at Exhibit 017: “The primary purpose of stormwater treatment mirrors the significance of the wetlands themselves, i.e., nutrient removal and stormwater storage. However, the proposed gravel
wetlands will likely have more significant values than the current wetlands because they have an open water component. Additionally, we have worked with the Applicant to expand the forebay to
be roughly double the size required. This will increase the amount of standing water and will
provide a new and potentially significant habitat for aquatic organisms that do not currently exist on the site.”
The letter goes on to note that in their work monitoring South Village, they have found stormwater ponds to be of significance for wildlife, noting: “I suspect the gravel wetlands will have
higher function and value for wildlife than the currently existing wetlands do, as well as performing their stated function of capturing sediments.”
The above reasoning is perhaps why the City has specifically allowed for Gravel Wetlands to be placed in Class III wetlands at Section 12.06(D(2)(a)(1) of the new Article 12 regulations adopted. These rules also recognize the similarity between a Class III and a Gravel Wetland, and specifically allow the
later in the place of the former.
28
Beyond these reasons however, the Applicant would also draw the Boards attention to the planned use of these fields as storage and deposit of fill excavated in the Project.
The significance of this area to retain on site many thousands of yards of soil cut out to enable road construction cannot be overstated. The Applicant’s analysis of the Project indicates a significant
amount of fill will be remaining at Project completion. This will be amplified by further construction in the C1-LR and IC areas, where significant cuts are also anticipated as part of construction. We fully expect tens of thousands of yards of fill will need to be placed on site. Our current estimate is 30,000
cubic yards from the first residential phase alone. For this reason, the Project is permitting Phase 4, which has the capacity to receive at least 50,000 cubic yards of fill, and likely more. This will allow the Project to remove 3,571 dump trucks from the road (assuming 14 yards per truck), going and coming for a total of 7,142 truck trips (assuming the full 50,000 cubic yard capacity is eventually used). With approved off-site fill dumping locations being so limited, it is safe to assume a minimum of 1 hour each way to approved facilities or about 45 miles, 90 miles round trip. Resulting in the burning of 22.5 gallons of diesel fuel for each trip. That is a total of 80,347 gallons of diesel and 7,142 truck trips on local roads. With 22.38 pounds of carbon released for every gallon of diesel burned, this is the equivalent of 900 tons
of carbon emissions. As noted in the Forrest Carbon handout created by the State of Vermont Department of Forests,
Parks and Recreation, the average Vermont forest stores approximately 80 tons of carbon per acre. This means that the off-site trucking of fill, if required to preserve the Class III wetlands that would be filled, would be the equivalent of a requirement to clear cut 11.25 acres of old forest.
It is sometimes said that the reason to protect Class III wetlands, even though their value is so limited and inconsequential as they sit, is because they could become significant at some future date.
Given that this reason is often cited, we also looked at what it would take to make these Class III wetlands qualify as Class II. As outlined in the letter at Exhibit 017, the opinion of our wetland ecologist is that manual intervention would be required to convert these wetlands to Class II, and an investment of some
size would be needed. You would need to block waterways in existence to flood land, plant extensive plants and trees, and potentially, even that would not work as the hydrology of the area may not be extensive enough. This is all to say that the Applicant believes the proposed impacts very clearly meet the test of the Regulations at Section 12.02(E) namely:
• “The encroachments will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry and store flood waters adequately.” No, the impacts will increase floodwater storage and capacity, and increase nutrient retention by planting a wide variety of wetland plants, and by establishing an open water pond.
• “The encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the propose stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards.” No, the stormwater system is
designed to comply with State standards and is not impacted.
• “The impact of the encroachment on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the
field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering and/or other mitigation measures.” The wetland values identified are low level water storage and nutrient removal. These values are replaced and
enhanced by planned stormwater improvements, in compliance with this criterion. In addition to meeting the test of the Regulations. The Applicant has also shown:
29
• The Class III wetlands functions and values noted will be enhanced by the proposal before the board, creating more significant wetland complexes that offer more functions and values, including an open water component intentionally designed larger than normal to provide wetland habitat.
• The Class III wetlands would likely cease to even be wetlands if development upslope diverted the existing watershed to stormwater treatment.
• The Class III wetlands are proposed to be filled with spoil from construction of the site, that will otherwise need to be trucked and disposed of resulting in over 7000 truck trips on local roads, and the emission of 900 tons of carbon into our environment which is the equivalent to clear cutting
11.25 acres of woodland. As outlined above, we believe that these modest wetland impacts are sensible, are in line with the regulations in effect and the newly adopted City regulations. We believe that these impacts are a benefit to the environment, allowing the prioritization of the reduction of fossil fuel emissions from the Project. We also believe that as thoughtfully designed and planted, the newly proposed man-made wetlands will function with higher value for the site and the environment.
The Applicant met with the Director of Parks and Recreation Holly Rees in early October 2021 to discuss ownership of the spaces planned at Eastview. The outcome of that conversation is memorialized
in an email dated October 8, 2021. The ownership structure proposed and agreed, reflected in the draft documents included in this application is as follows:
• Lot 18: Open Space: public ownership.
• Lot 19: Natural Play Area, public ownership.
• Lot 47: Dog Park, Play Area, Open Space, public ownership. City to take over immediately after construction without delay and prior to dog park opening.
• Workout Loop: Public access and maintenance agreement. Ownership maintained by HOA.
• Barn and Community Space: Public access and maintenance agreement. Ownership maintained by HOA.
Complete roadway plans are provided, including sections. Pavement marking plans are provided.
Street trees are shown on landscape plans. No street lighting is proposed at this time and therefore is not shown.
30
Plans are adjusted to show this. As requested above, the Applicant is seeking to alter Barn Road, such that it does not extend to the property line to preserve coverage, and is open to extending it at such time the City assumes ownership, or to the payment in lieu option, allowed per Section 15.12D.
The Applicant worked with the Director of Public works to refine roadway widths, complete civil
and pavement marking plans are provided in line with those conversations.
These items have been addressed in the updated civil and roadway plans. We look forward to the Boards review of the updates.
We have adjusted the width of the roadway to be 28 ft as requested. We have also removed the
duplicative sidewalk and added the crosswalk as noted in this comment, and appreciate this suggestion which did help to reduce coverage for the Project.
31
The cul-de-sac has been updated to comply with the requirements of the Department of Public works, updated plans are provided.
The Project plans have been updated accordingly.
The Project plans have been updated to show one curb cut. The Applicant requests that the Board’s decision allow for future evaluation as to whether a second curb cut can be permitted in this area. As the Board will note, the Applicant is now proposing two lots here. There is significant grading
between Lot 40 and Lot 50 and depending on the eventual development configuration, a separate curb cut may be justified. While the Applicant is not seeking this now, we would request the Board not prohibit it in the future.
Project plans are updated accordingly.
None are shown on the Project plans. Again, the Applicant would ask that the Board not create prohibitions on the future at this time. There is a possibility regulation might change, such that an additional curb cut would be warranted or approvable. A finding such as the above seems fairly stern for
something that may want to adapt over time. No curb cuts are currently proposed, to install a curb cut one would have to be proposed. Rather than prohibit that, the Applicant would request the Board simply not approve them now, and review any future proposal at that time. Saying as a fact that it will never be
permitted seems to create a hurdle that may eventually be problematic.
32
Project plans have been amended as directed by this finding.
The proposed connection is reviewed in detail in the Pedestrian Report and is proposed in the Civil Drawings for the Project. Applicant would request that the Board allow or the phasing of
construction of this improvement to be flexible. While Applicant is happy to build this connection with its Project, Applicant is unsure of whether the Hillside HOA will approve of this work. Since the roadway (Two Brothers Drive) is not yet adopted by the City, the HOA may leverage this work to expedite that adoption. The Applicant will build this connection as noted as soon as the connection is permitted on the land shown, and the Board should condition its approval to note that the construction may need to wait until Two Brothers Drive is adopted by the City.
While generally all recreation paths are shown at 10 feet in width, limited sections of 8’ wide path are proposed along Old Farm Road, in front of the triplex development. In this limited space, and with a sidewalk opposite, the Applicant felt (as confirmed by the Pedestrian Report) that an 8’ width was appropriate. Please see the Pedestrian Report for further details
The project plans are updated to show this concrete sidewalk connection.
The Applicant has provided plans for a sidewalk connection along the eastern side of Old Farm
Road as required by this finding. The plans as shown have been designed with great care to maintain
33
existing vegetation. Applicant does not believe that any significant trees will be harmed by the installation of the sidewalk, though it is difficult to know that with certainty, and some may be impacted.
The sidewalk has in fact even jogged in locations to avoid impacts to trees and to add traffic calming features. The Applicant believes this design is integral to achieving success, and looks forward to the confirmation of the design by the Department of Public Works and the Board.
The Applicant is caught in an unfortunate dispute between the Development Review Board and one of the Applicant’s neighbors. Subsequent to the issuance of the Preliminary Plat the Applicant’s
permit was appealed to environmental court by a neighbor who opposes this sidewalk. That appeal has not been settled, but merely stayed until Final Plat issues. Despite Applicant’s best efforts to speak with both the neighbor and the City to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome or compromise, we have thus far been unsuccessful in having either side adjust their position. Applicant requests that the Development Review Board adopt an approach to the sidewalk that does not result in unnecessary delay for an inevitable appeal for its decision on final plat. To that end, Applicant suggests that rather than the DRB requiring the sidewalk as a condition, which will
perpetuate the appeal, delay the Project and the provided market rate and affordable housing units, and cost the Applicant and the City a substantial amount in legal fees, that the DRB allow the City Council to complete a scoping study, as was recommended by the City’s own consultant in the Tilley Drive report,
and then have the City Council appropriate funds provided by Applicant, in its ordinary process for construction of the chosen alternative.
The Applicant is willing to contribute 50% or up to $15,000 to complete the scoping study requested, and is also willing to contribute the full estimated cost of the sidewalk now being required by the DRB ($160,000) to escrow for use by the city in completing the scoping study and construction of the
sidewalk. This is a total contribution of $175,000 for the city to complete this sidewalk construction project itself.
The Applicant believes that should the DRB simply require the Applicant to escrow the funds to construct the sidewalk, and that the City construct the sidewalk themselves after authorization by the City Council, the appeal will be lifted. The Appellant has stated such. In the interest of moving forward the critical housing proposed by this Project, and compromising with the Applicant who has worked with the Board on so many issues to create a great project for the City, we hope the Board can change course, accept the full funding of the sidewalk by the Applicant, and simply task the City Council and the public works department to get this path built in the near term. For a municipality of this size, with the depth of skill and experience they have, building this sidewalk is not a challenging undertaking.
We hope that the Board will give strong consideration to this alternate outcome, which achieves the same end, but does so in a way that both the Applicant and Project neighbors are willing to accept.
The Applicant is proposing critical housing supply for the City of South Burlington and the Applicant is ready to start construction immediately. A 12-month delay to construction for litigating this path will cause significant harm to the Applicant, and will delay a critical and much needed resource from the city
and State, including 15 perpetually affordable homes. It will also pose a threat to the Applicant’s ability to complete the project, as sub-contractor labor will be lost during the delay and may be hard to get back in a market that is so constricted with high demand.
The Applicant has laid out the Project plans such that this sidewalk can be easily omitted. It is called out on the overall plan and phasing plan as separate and individual plan sheets that show the
sidewalk (C-19, Exhibit 150 and ESPC 18.1, Exhibit 206) can simply be removed from the approved plans. If the sidewalk is removed from the Project, Phase 17 will also be omitted from the Project
34
phasing. The Applicant requests that the board authorize the removal of these plans, and impose a condition to escrow the $175,000 noted above for use by the City in building the sidewalk.
If the DRB continues to believe that ordering Applicant to construct the sidewalk is the proper approach, the Applicant requests that it adopt the escrow approach as an alternative finding that would
satisfy the requirements of the Land Development Regulations in the event that Environmental Division accepts the neighbor’s arguments concerning the legality of the condition. With an alternative finding, the Environmental Division could simply affirm the issuance of the permit at the beginning of neighbor’s
appeal and allow the litigation concerning the path to continue separately while the project construction gets underway. We have proposed language for this type of condition below: This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the
South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. In the event that the Environmental Division determines the requiring the construction of the sidewalk shown in [drawing showing
sidewalk] is illegal, beyond the DRB’s authority to order, or otherwise not eligible for
construction, the DRB orders Applicant to deposit $175,000 in an escrow fund to use for improvements along the project boundaries. The permit issued is not dependent on the
Environmental Division’s decision with respect to the legality of the sidewalk.
This sidewalk has been added to the Project plans.
The recreation path is drawn as required by this comment. A landscape plan is provided in the landscape documents. However, the Applicant is requesting reconsideration of this requirement by the Board. The jog proposed in the rec path takes the path outside of the City ROW. Because the path is on the Applicant’s land and not the City ROW in this jogged location, the coverage therefore applies to the Project. As drawn currently, this represents approximately 3,066 square feet of additional coverage. The
Applicant would like to move the path back to the ROW, reducing project coverage by 3,066 square feet, and providing some cushion for overall coverage proposed. We hope the Board will agree to this minor change, as it could result in the loss of homes in the Project, including affordable homes, to have this rec
path jog, which is an unfortunate outcome given the importance of new housing for the City’s residents.
As noted above, the plan shows this roadway and sidewalk extended, but the Applicant is requesting reconsideration and the potential payment off a fee in lieu of constructing this to the property line in order to reduce coverage. We look forward to discussing this with the Board.
35
The path requested has been added to the plans. We look forward to discussing this with the Board.
This crosswalk has been added to the Project plans. We look forward to discussing this with the Board.
This suggestion was reviewed in detail in the Pedestrian Report. For reasons outlined in the report, it was determined that no bulb-out locations were apparent and therefore none are included.
Should staff or DPW determine this is incorrect, the Applicant will be happy to add them into the plan.
The site plans have been updated to align walks and paths through drives and across streets where applicable as outlined in the Pedestrian Report at Exhibit 009.
The Pedestrian report reviewed on-street parking for compliance with ADA standards and recommended three ADA accessible on-street parallel parking spaces. These spaces are included in the Project plans and details are noted in the Pedestrian Report.
Path surfacing materials are noted in Project plans and are called out in Attachment A of the Pedestrian Report for ease in review, see Exhibit 009. Paths in the above specified locations are included
and described.
36
The Applicant has included this connection, this connection and the need for the Board to
condition its construction with flexibility are discussed above. Applicant again would request that this permit be conditioned only on filing a site plan amendment for the addition of the sidewalk to Hillside, and constructing that sidewalk within one year of permits issuing.
The Applicant has relocated this sidewalk as requested.
This mid-block sidewalk has been added to the Project plans as requested.
The Tilley Drive path is discussed in detail in the context of the Phasing Plan outlined above. As
noted, since no agreement for easement could be finalized with the adjacent property owner, the path is no longer proposed. The Applicant considers that the path will likely be required for adjacent development within the Tilley Drive subdivision, and so will still build the path to its property line for
future connection.
Since the Preliminary Plat submission, the Applicant has added two additional private driveways to the plans on Lot 36, and Lot 24. All other roadways are planned to be public. The requested legal
documents are attached as exhibits to this application.
37
Special paving is removed from the plans. Pavement marking and signage plans are included for review. No street lights are proposed at this time.
This finding remains accurate for the middle units located on Lot 20 of the Project Plans. The total density is now increased to 155 dwelling units, which will require 16 inclusionary housing units. The Applicant proposes to construct all eight of the townhome center units on Lot 20 as inclusionary, and
any excess inclusionary units required under the ordinance in cottage dwelling units on Lot 16. The Applicant considers that up to four bedrooms are possible with a finished basement layout in all planned inclusionary units, and therefore, two four-bedroom units could count for four inclusionary required units, per the Regulations. The Applicant intends to offer and sell both three-bedroom and four-bedroom layouts and so the exact number of units sold that will be inclusionary is not known at this time. It will be a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 12, as no two-bedroom units are designed or available.
38
The triplex unit proposed to be the inclusionary unit is TH1-1. Plans for this unit are provided. Per the area schedule on the unit plans, the livable square footage is 1462. This is well beyond the 1200
square foot requirement. Cottage plan SF10, the other inclusionary unit offers a square footage of 1256. This calculation is also included on the architectural plans. Both floor plans meet the requirements of this ordinance.
The Applicant has provided a spreadsheet at Exhibit 044 that looks at the number of bedrooms in each plan type offered in Eastview. It then notes how many lots each plan type is available on. Then the
spreadsheet totals the number of lot/plan combinations by bedroom count. There are 54 available combinations where a lot accommodates a 2-bedroom plan, 352 available combinations where a lot accommodates a 3-bedroom plan, and 62 combinations where a lot accommodates a 4-bedroom plan. By
percentage, 88% of units would be expected to be 2-3 bedroom and 12% four bedrooms. Given this, the Applicant has proposed a mix of a minimum of 2 four-bedroom units, 25%, and
the remaining 75% as three-bedroom units. We believe this to be a “worst case.” As requested by the Board. Applicant is happy to revisit this estimate per the text of the ordinance once fifty units are sold if all affordable units are not already built.
39
As outlined in detail at the Preliminary Plat, the Applicant is excited for the opportunity to make use of on-site resources in construction of the Project. A project of this magnitude will require thousands of trucks with stone and earth products coming on site. This trucking will result in significant greenhouse gas emissions procuring material that already exists on site. This Project is capable of storing all of its cuts on site saving 900 tons of carbon emissions as outlined above, and of producing a large portion of the total need for stone products from on-site ledge deposits. Currently we estimate we can produce nearly 100,000 cubic yards of stone on site. This will result in 7,142 truck trips being saved to (and 7,142 from) the quarry in Winooski (assuming trucks use the closest quarry which may not be the case). A total of
14,285 trips and another significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this benefit, the Project will seek to blast and crush on site ledge deposits located near
Kimball Avenue. The precise location of the project borrow pit can be seen on Civil Sheets Q1-Q4 provided. This borrow pit will eventually become development lots 40, 41, 42 and 50.
In response to the specific criterion above. The depth of the excavation is shown in site sections provided at Q-1-Q-4. Existing and proposed grades are noted in the same location. The Applicant believes that the proposed borrow pit will have a benefit to traffic, by reducing construction related truck travel on local roads. Unlike for-sale quarry operations that would seek to export, this borrow pit will be used largely via internal haul roads, though occasionally trucks will need to use City roads, the use of roads will be reduced significantly. The Applicant does not believe that there is any potential erosive issue with the planned borrow pit. A limited topsoil stockpile will be used as a berm for sound attenuation, located where shown on the Project plans. Erosion prevention and sediment control plans are provided for these operations. However, it should be noted that this area will be largely stone, and non-erosive in nature. Indeed,
40
covering open dirt or site areas with stone is a method of erosion control, and the entire borrow pit operation is anticipated to be stone and on stone.
Items 3, 4 and 5 listed above pertain to impacts on neighbors. The impacts of blasting and crushing in the location of the borrow pit are limited to vibration and noise. Dust is less of a concern due
to the isolation of the blasting and crushing location, and is also mitigated with fairly standard practices, such as dust control on drilling machines (outlined in the blast plan), and water to control dust during any crushing operations. Given this, dust is not addressed further. To analyze the noise and vibration impacts
the Applicant has provided several items for the Board’s review. First, the Applicant is providing a blasting plan from Maine Drilling and Blasting dated March 10, 2022 attached as Exhibit 045. This plan provides details on safety procedures, blast designs, drilling and blasting equipment, noise control, dust control, and all other relevant information necessary to analyze the planned blasting operations and ensure a safe and efficient blast plan is in place. The Applicant has worked with the blaster to identify homes adjacent to the project where pre-blast surveys will be offered. The pre-blast survey radius is noted at page 20 of the blast plan. All pre-blast surveys
will be paid for by the Applicant. In working with Maine Drilling and Blasting to develop the blast plan, the Applicant engaged an
expert third party blasting engineer at Brierly Associates, Jay Perkins, to act as an owner’s representative, and to ensure that the blasting plan produced met our expectations for safety and neighbor relations. Specifically, these expectations included blast designs that set vibration limits at 50% of the industry
standard. All project blast plans are designed for a maximum vibration of 1.0 inche per second at the nearest residence. As noted in the third-party review of the blast plan, attached as Exhibit 047: “These limits are half of the studied and documented safe limits for preventing cosmetic damage (hairline
cracking, or the extension of existing hairline cracks), to residential structures. The report further notes: “setting the blast design standard at 50% of the proven safe industry-standard level is being done at the request of the Project owner.” This is correct, the Project owner is intentionally restricting the size of
blasts conducted to ensure a better experience for neighbors. The review of the Blasting Plan attached as Exhibit 047 confirms that these design limits are set and that the Blast Plan complies with them. It should be noted that these design restrictions do extend the blasting schedule. It is anticipated to take 75 days to drill and blast the entire area of the borrow pit with these restriction in place. This timeline does not include other blasting for home sites and utilities, which will also be needed. Given this reduced standard for vibration at adjacent residences and the limited duration of activities, the Applicant believes that blasting vibrations proposed with the borrow pit will not create a
nuisance, will not impact public health negatively, and will not affect the use of property through undue vibration. The Applicant would also contend that in fact the proposal has a positive impact on public health and safety by reducing Project carbon emissions. The Applicant has included with this application
at Exhibit 048 a commonly asked questions handout, prepared by Brierly Associates, designed to answer questions neighbors might have, and we would encourage neighbors and the Board to review this document for more information on the proposed blasting operations and their safety.
To review the impacts of noise generated from the blasting and crushing of stone products in the borrow pit, the Applicant engaged RSG to conduct a noise study. The Hillside Development Phase 2
Quarry Construction Sound Study, dated March 10, 2022 (the “Noise Study”) is attached as Exhibit 046. This extensive study has monitored existing sound levels and modeled proposed sound levels from blasting and crushing operations in the borrow pit. The study is extensive and cannot be easily
paraphrased or summarized here, but the key takeaways included in the executive summary of the Noise Study state:
41
Based on sound propagation modeling, the maximum sound levels from Project drilling and crushing activities at the quarry site are expected to range from 35 to 57 dBA Lmax at the
nearest existing homes when drilling is located adjacent to residences. Sound levels inside these homes with windows closed would be about 9 to 30 dBA Lmax, assuming a 27 dBA reduction from outside to inside. In comparison, the existing average daytime exterior sound levels in the
vicinity of the project, generated primarily from aircraft and vehicular traffic, are in the range of 55 to 72 dBA Leq, with maximum sound levels from aircraft in the range of 70 to 80 dBA Lmax.
There are no State or local statutes or regulations that establish quantitative noise standards applicable to construction of this Project. For informational purposes, Project construction sounds are given with respect to the Vermont Act 250 commonly applied noise limit
for operational sound sources of 55 dBA Lmax. Maximum sound levels are modeled to be as high as 57 dBA Lmax when drilling is closest to residences for seven cumulative days or fewer at each individual location. Sound levels from the crusher are not modeled to exceed 55 dBA Lmax at any
existing residences.
Given the short duration of construction sounds at any individual receptor, exceedance of
the operational limit would not cause an adverse impact on aesthetics with regard to noise. Project construction could exceed 55 dBA Lmax for periods of up to seven days at individual
receptors and would typically be similar in level or below background sound levels generated by
aircraft and vehicular traffic. Given the short duration of these sounds at any individual receptor, Project construction would not cause an undue adverse impact on aesthetics with regard to noise.
Given that sound levels in the area average 55-72 decibels, and the maximum sound levels modeled from the Project borrow pit are 57 decibels (the lowest end of the constant range in this location)
at the nearest residence, the Applicant believes that no nuisance is created, no impact to public health is created, and there is no effect on neighboring properties due to noise.
As noted in the Blasting Plan, blasting operations for the borrow pit are anticipated to take 75 days. They may in fact take longer but this is the current best estimate of the driller.
Crushing operations will be conducted annually until all stone is utilized on site. We expect to use all 100,000 cubic yards of stone in the construction of the 155 homes and associated roadways
proposed. Given this, we expect crushing will be complete within six years. Crushing operations would be limited in duration to 14 weeks per year, and would generally occur in winter months. This would occur once a year to generate material for the next construction season. The Applicant would note that crushing operations at Hillside continued for about three seasons, and homeowners living in Hillside could hardly tell anything was happening. The crushers are hardly louder than adjacent traffic. This fact is born out in the noise study, but was experienced by the Applicant and residents.
The borrow pit is designed to reduce roadway impacts. It is located in a commercial area, on land zoned for industrial use and poses no significant visual impact. Noise as modeled is below the current
ambient level of noise in the location of the borrow pit. Dust is proposed to be controlled by trapping it
42
when drilling, and by the application of water when crushing. Crushing is also proposed in winter months when snow and ice is present, which actually acts as a significant dust control measure.1
The Applicant has produced a detailed phasing plan. That phasing plan includes phases of homes, grading, roadways, public improvements and landscape improvements. It has phase triggers and completion triggers, and is laid out in a manner that has been reviewed by the Board. The construction of haul roads and internal maneuvering of equipment is not something that the
Applicant can provide to the Board. The Applicant has provided some conceptual haul road locations in the EPSC plans. Those roads may need to move, be relocated, or re-oriented to facilitate construction. This is a massive site work project that is impacted by hundreds of variables on a daily basis which are
analyzed by our project team of dozens of individuals working to build the Project. To presume that we can plan to this level of detail with regard to internal haul roads would be an error. We must have the flexibility to adapt and to build the project as required by the facts on the ground and simply cannot
provide this level of detail on internal site maneuvering. What can be certified in line with the intent of this request, is that haul roads will be removed and
final plans will be fully installed at the completion of the phases outlined in the phasing plan. Of further note is that the Applicant is selling homes. Homeowners who purchase homes will not allow for haul roads in their back yards and the Applicant will be required by its own business model and customers to ensure its internal haul roads are logically located with what is built, and are removed and built to final specs as adjacent homes are constructed. This same methodology was used at Hillside without issue.
A borrow pit restoration plan is provided in the Civil set.
The Applicant would request that the Board grant a duration of six construction seasons. That is to say, six years from the date of the first zoning permit that is issued. This will allow for the Applicant to construct the roadways and homes as currently planned. The Applicant would further request that the Board not put a time limit on the use of the stabilized stone pad where crushing and blasting occurred as a construction entrance and storage area. The location adjacent to Kimball Avenue on stabilized stone will be a perfect staging area for the construction of the entire project, which we anticipate could take 10-15 years to complete.
1 Please note that the Applicant is happy to restrict crushing to winter months AFTER the first round of crushing. This is simply because we are unsure when final permits will issue. If final permits issue in fall, crushing would happen over the winter, but if they issue in spring, it would need to happen in summer months for the first season, and could commence again in winter thereafter.
43
A rehabilitation plan has been submitted. The borrow pit is intended to become a development
lot in the IC district. Given this, the rehabilitation plan consists of leveling, topsoiling, seeding and stabilizing the site such that it may be marketed as planned. This plan would not need to go into effect until such time as construction of the Project is complete, or Applicant becomes insolvent and
construction ceases to proceed.
The Applicant is happy to accept hours of operation for the borrow pit. We would suggest 7:00AM-7:00PM Monday to Friday with no weekend work hours for blasting or crushing operations. We would allow work with standard construction equipment on Saturday and Sunday, from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. No work on any Federal holidays.
The Applicant has proposed a $50,000 bond be filed for the restoration of the quarry site at the start of Phase 1 on the phasing plan. Topsoil from the site is intended to be stockpiled on site as a noise buffer. Stone blasted and crushed is of significant value and could be easily liquidated in the event of a work stoppage or default by Applicant, and $50,000 is a sufficient amount to spread the topsoil and
seed/stabilize it in accordance with the reclamation plan. This borrow pit will also not be happening in a bubble, and the City will be holding millions of dollars of bonding as surety for the overall project.
The Applicant has proposed the deposit of excess fill on site to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project. The Applicant has also proposed the borrow pit on Kimball Avenue to reduce project greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts are supported by the State of Vermont in the Act 250 process, and widely recognized to be significant for the environment and public health. We hope that the Energy Committee will recognize and support these efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While we appreciate this goal, the Applicant is unable to construct the Eastview neighborhood
without fossil fuel infrastructure. Natural gas will be installed along all project roadways. The Applicant would point out that in larger multi-family buildings currently proposed at Hillside, all electric heat systems are being used. While these alternatives do exist, in a for-sale single family housing development, it is important to respect the desires of customers. The Applicant is of course ready and
44
able to install all electric home heat systems. We have done so in Hillside and can do so again and have experience and expertise in how these systems work and how to build them.
The Applicant offers rough in of car chargers in homes where it is appropriate or where easy access via an unfinished basement is not viable. The Applicant also installs electric car charges per
specifications provided by homeowners as requested. In general, electrical panels are located in unfinished basements that often back up to garage walls, and the installation of car chargers is fairly straightforward and can be done at any time. In most plan types there is no efficiency provided by pre-
wiring or roughing in for future car chargers. All customers are able to add car charges if they choose.
The Applicant does provide solar ready roofs. We also provide interior conduits from the attic to
the electrical panel for the ease of future solar installations. Many of our customers choose to install solar panels and have had great success. In general, our roads run from north to south, and building orientation is great for solar. Multiple plan types and rooflines are also available on each lot, allowing customers to
choose plans that align with their solar goals on a lot-by-lot basis. For instance, the Daisy floor plan, attached as Exhibit 027 has two elevations with the same exact interior space and foundation. One has the gable running front to back, the other has the gable running side to side. A buyer could choose the elevation best suited to the solar orientation of their lot if they wanted.
The land involved in the Project is not conducive to ground mounted solar arrays. The centrally
located land is planned in this PUD to fill valuable roles for the city in its long-term plan. The Applicant is of course open to off-site solar arrays, but these would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when appropriate, and likely in the context of larger buildings and not single-family homes.
The Applicant uses the HERS compliance method detailed at Chapter 7 of the 2020 Vermont
Residential Energy Code Handbook. The maximum HERS score allowed for certification is a 54. Currently, Applicant is closing homes in the Hillside neighborhood with HERS scores in the low 40’s. We are working in partnership with Efficiency Vermont at Hillside. We do not use the points table at Section 5.6 of the handbook directly.
45
We appreciate the Boards review of our application. This is the last comment from the Preliminary Plat. We look forward to our upcoming hearing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development
Enclosures