The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSD-22-10 - Decision - 0500 Old Farm Road - SD-22-10_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_FP_FFD 1 1 of 48 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING O’BRIEN EASTVIEW, LLC – 500 OLD FARM ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-22-10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, twenty four (24) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road. The Development Review Board held public hearings on July 19, September 7, October 6, and November 15, 2022. Evan Langfeldt, Andrew Gill, Scott Homstead, Corey Mack, Jeff Hodgson, Carolyn Orben, Joe Maschek, and Roger Dickinson represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above-mentioned public hearing and the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, O’Brien Eastview, LLC, is seeking final plat approval to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, twenty four (24) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road. 2. The owners of record are O’Brien Family Limited Liability Company, Daniel and Sandra O’Brien, and Stephanie O’Brien. 3. The application was received on June 10, 2022. 4. The tax parcel IDs for the subject property are 1260-0200F, 0970-00255.C, 0970-00255, 0980- 00055 and consists of 102 acres. The lots are split by Old Farm Road and by Kimball Ave, both public streets. 5. The Board approved preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 for this project on August 31, 2021. This final plat application is therefore subject to the regulations effective December 28, 2020. 6. The materials submitted consist of the following: Exhibit Name Exhibit Description Last Update Exhibit 000 Application Narrative 4/14/2022 Exhibit 217 DRB Narrative Supplement 06 10 22 6/10/2022 Exhibit 218 DRB Narrative Supplement 08 22 22 8/22/2022 Exhibit 219 DRB Narrative Supplement 09 29 22 9/29/2022 Exhibit 003 PUD Density Matrix Calculation 3/9/2022 Exhibit 004 Home and Townhome Model Availability Matrix by Lot 3/9/2022 Exhibit 005 Eastview Coverage Chart 10/25/2022 #SD-22-10 2 2 of 48 Exhibit 008 Project Infrastructure Budget by Phase Includes all 16 Project Phases 3/9/2022 Exhibit 009 Eastview PUD Transportation System Review, Pedestrian and Bicycle 3/22/2022 Exhibit 010 - 011 Eastview PUD TIA & appendices 3/30/2022 Exhibit 014 Lot 19 Open Space Structure Plan 3/15/2022 Exhibit 015 C1LR Character Imagery 8/16/2022 Exhibit 016 C1-LR Concept Layout 8/18/2022 Exhibit 016.1 C1-LR Frontage Site Plan 8/17/2022 Exhibit 017 Class III Wetland Description and Impact Discussion Memo, Art Gilman 3/16/2022 Exhibit 018 Design Guide for C1-LR Lands 10/25/2022 Exhibit 019 – 041 Architectural Plans 3/21/2022 Exhibit 042 Landscape Budget 3/30/2022 Exhibit 044 Inclusionary Housing Mean Bedroom Calculator 3/29/2022 Exhibit 045 – 048 Blasting Plan and analysis Maine Drilling and Blasting 3/14/2022 Exhibit 049 Stormwater computations and basis of design capacity analysis 4/5/2022 Exhibit 050 Lot area acres and square foot matrix required by Appendix E 3/29/2022 Exhibit 051 Written Plan to Protect Vegetation on Site 3/23/2022 Exhibit 052 Barn Lot Pic Nic Shelter Plan 3/24/2022 Exhibit 053 – 064 Draft Legal Documents 4/12/2022 Exhibit 064.1 L000 Overall Site Plan Path Materials 10/31/2022 Exhibit 065 L100 Overall Site Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 066 - 088 L101 – L120 Planting Plans 10/21/2022 Exhibit 089 L200 Enlarged Community Barn Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 090 L201 Enlarged Natural Playground Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 091 L202 Enlarged Play Equipment Park 10/21/2022 Exhibit 091 L301 Landscape Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 092 - 094 L203 – L205 Circuit Training Trail 10/21/2022 Exhibit 095 L206 Dog Park Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 096 L300 Landscape Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 097 L301 Typical Unit Planting 10/21/2022 Exhibit 098 L302 Typical Utility Screening Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 099 K1 Traffic Signal Kimball and Old Farm 10/22/2022 Exhibit 100 K2 Traffic Signal Kimball and Potash Road 10/22/2022 Exhibit 101 K3 Cantilever and Pole Sections Kimball and Old Farm 10/22/2022 #SD-22-10 3 3 of 48 Exhibit 102 K4 Cantilever and Pole Sections Kimball and Potash Road 10/22/2022 Exhibit 103 K5 Cantilever Pole Details 10/22/2022 Exhibit 104 K6 Traffic Signal Specifications 10/22/2022 Exhibit 105 K7 Traffic Control Plan Short Term Lane Closures 10/22/2022 Exhibit 106 – 110 Pavement Marking Plans 10/22/2022 Exhibit 111 01 Signal Configuration Test Fit for Future Signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road 2/28/2022 Exhibit 112 Civil Plans Cover Page and Index 10/21/2022 Exhibit 113 – 115 Existing Conditions Plans 10/21/2022 Exhibit 115.1 X-4 Existing Conditions Aerial Overlay 10/21/2022 Exhibit 116 PL-1 Final Plat 10/21/2022 Exhibit 117 PL-2 Final Plat 10/21/2022 Exhibit 118 E-1 Easement Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 119 E-2 Easement Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 120 Pl-3 Final Plat Footprint Lots 10/21/2022 Exhibit 121 Pl-4 Final Plat Footprint Lots 10/21/2022 Exhibit 122 Pl-5 Final Plat Footprint Lots 10/21/2022 Exhibit 123 PH-1 Phasing Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 124 C-1 Overall Site Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 125 C-1.1 Overall Zoning Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 126 – 150 Civil Site Plans 10/21/2022 Exhibit 151 – 152 Watershed Maps 10/21/2022 Exhibit 153 C-20.2 Post Construction Soil Depth & Quality Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 154 C-20.3 Stormwater Maintenance Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 155 C-21 Open Space and Resident Amenity Plan 10/21/2022 Exhibit 156 Q-1 Overall Site Plan Rock Extraction and Crushing Area 10/21/2022 Exhibit 157 Q-2 Site Plan Rock Extraction and Crushing Area 10/21/2022 Exhibit 158 Q-3 Site Sections, Rock Extraction and Crushing Area 10/21/2022 Exhibit 159 Q-4 Site Reclamation Plan Rock Extraction and Crushing Area 10/21/2022 Exhibit 160 – 171 Road Profiles 10/21/2022 Exhibit 172 – 175 Road Sections 10/21/2022 Exhibit 176 - 183 Civil, Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Details 10/21/2022 #SD-22-10 4 4 of 48 Exhibit 184 D-10 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 185 D-11 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 186 D-12 EPSC & Tree Protection Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 187 D-13 Site Electric Details 10/21/2022 Exhibit 188 – 212 EPSC Plans 10/21/2022 Exhibit 213 Overall Landscape Plan with 40’ Street Tree Sample Plan 9/28/2022 Exhibit 214 Street Tree Spacing Comparison Exhibit 9/28/2022 Exhibit 215 Wetland Disturbance Summary 10/6/2022 Exhibit 216 Traffic Question Email Response 10/6/2022 Exhibit 220 Footprint Lot Height Table and Waiver Requests 10/25/2022 Exhibit 221 Lot 18 Open Space Images 10/19/2022 7. The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD, and Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning Districts. The project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 1 and 3 as well as the Transit Overlay District. The fraction of the project in each of the applicable zoning districts, and the allowable coverage in each district, follows. Zoning District Fraction of Project Area Allowable Lot Coverage R1-PRD 38% 30% C1-LR 23% 70% R12 1% 60% IC 38% 70% 8. The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the standards of the applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses. The project is also required to provide inclusionary housing. The project contains both Class II and Class III wetlands, though only Class III wetlands and their buffers are proposed to be impacted. 9. The project is adjacent to the Hillside phase of the O’Brien development, referred to as MP1 and Hillside herein. Hillside includes 490 homes, plus bonus inclusionary units, of which two buildings containing approximately 81 units have as yet only received preliminary plat approval. 10. As noted in the project description, this proposed final plat consists of the following elements: • 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings. These homes are centered along Old Farm Road. This represents an increase of nine (9) units over what was approved at preliminary plat • eighteen (18) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres. This is 4.2 acres and one lot fewer than was proposed at preliminary plat (with 4.2 acres having been re-assigned to the residential portion of the project). These development lots are located in the C1-LR and I-C zoning districts, which have different allowed uses but similar dimensional standards. No development of these lots is proposed at this time, but the road network serving these lots #SD-22-10 5 5 of 48 and a framework for development of the lots in the C1-LR, including connectivity to the currently proposed residential phase, is presented for approval. • 25.2 acres of undeveloped and recreational spaces, including spaces used for stormwater treatment. 11. The applicant has received Planning Commission approval for road names used herein. Alleys are not considered roads and no approval for the alley names has been granted. 12. Significant changes since preliminary plat include the following. • Relocation of recreation path connection to Tilley Drive • Removal of the resident club and replacement with a scaled-down community barn center • Removal of a multi-family building on Lot 24 and replacement with four single family homes and a stormwater pond due to a change in the stormwater design for the project. • Removal of existing home at 100 Old Farm Road (Lot 36) and proposal for five homes set on top of a 5-ft high retaining wall along Old Farm Road. • Re-orientation of intersection, stormwater, and lot layout at the intersection of Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road A) PHASING The applicant has provided a phasing plan for the infrastructure, single, two and three family areas of the project. At the direction of the Board, the phasing plan includes a specific trigger for completion of non-residential phases such as roads and open spaces. Internal non-residential phases include the following. The applicants trigger “at” or “by” the zoning permit for a certain unit is unclear. The Board has modified the language to be more clear. Edits are shown in red underline. Phase Description Schedule Phase 1 IC Roadway and Construction Staging Area At start of construction. Not to commence prior to the first zoning permit for the infrastructure or home construction. Phase 4 Soil Stockpile and Fill Area As needed to facilitate materials storage. Not to commence prior to first zoning permit for infrastructure or home construction. Phase 7 Barn Improvements and Old Farm Parallel Parking, Sidewalk in this Phase Barn lot amenity to be complete by prior to 125 unit zoning permit issuance. #SD-22-10 6 6 of 48 Phase 8 Relocated Old Farm Road, Stormwater and Rec Path from Old Farm Road to Kennedy Drive Complete "curb to curb" at prior to unit 125 zoning permit issuance. Elements of roadway outside of curb may be reserved for construction with adjacent buildings. Applicant will provide a temporary rec path connection to Kimball Ave along the alignment of the proposed road. Opening of the roadway will be subject to formal adoption by City. Provided the roadway is complete as certified by Applicant and its engineer, there shall be no delay in issuance of zoning permits for failure to open the road due to the City not adopting it, or delays in the city adoption process. DPW and Planning Staff will recommend to Council that the City accept the roadway from curb-to-curb, and simultaneously close and relinquish the existing Old Farm Road, when its construction is deemed complete, provided the applicant has provided a surety for full construction of the roadway. The portion of the surety representing the unconstructed portion of the roadway would not be released until such time as it was constructed. The portion of the surety for the driveable surface would be released at the expiration of the warranty period. Phase 8 and Phase 10 shall be initiated as part of the same zoning permit. Phase 9 O’Brian Farm Road Cul-de-sac Prior to construction on Lot 52 – 57, and prior to occupancy of units 24-1 to 24-4, 41-11 to 31-26. Phase 10 O'Brien Farm Road Extension to Old Farm Road Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for 125 unit. Phase 8 and Phase 10 shall be initiated as part of the same zoning permit. Phase 11 Open Space Park Amenity (Lot 47) Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for 125 unit. The fitness elements of this phase are included in Phase 16 and shall be installed as part of that phase. Phase 12 Open Space Park Amenity and Playground (Lot 47) This is the phase which includes the dog park. Complete at prior to 50% projected PM Peak Hour Trips for C1-LR Development area, as noted in project TIA, or the 250th home in the Eastview PUD. Phase 13 Old Farm Road and Kimball Avenue Intersection Traffic Light When warranted based on ongoing monitoring described in the Board’s findings on 15.18A(3). Phase 14 Potash Road Concurrent with first zoning permit for development on the IC Lots, excluding the gravel extraction and construction staging area. #SD-22-10 7 7 of 48 Phase 15 Potash Road Kimball Avenue Intersection Traffic Light When warranted based on ongoing monitoring. Phase 16 Open Space Amenity IC Trail Including Fitness Stations in Phase 11. Built concurrently and complete prior to the certificate of occupancy for fourth principal structure or the development which generates more than 575 PM Peak Hour Trips in the IC Land, roughly 50% of anticipated IC Development Trip Ends, irrespective of C1-LR, R1 and R12 Development. Phase 17 Old Farm Road Sidewalk to 116 Complete at prior to issuance of zoning permit for 125 100th unit. Phase 18 Kimball Ave. Rec Path Constructed simultaneous with Phase 12, or Phase 14, whichever is first. The Board finds the applicant’s proposed phasing, as modified by the Board, will generally result in front-loading the construction of an important local and regional pedestrian connection along the entirety of Old Farm Road from VT 116 (Hinesburg Road) to Kimball Ave concurrently with the approved homes. In support of the importance of this proposed connection, the Board finds a continuous pedestrian connection, whether permanent or temporary, must be complete prior to issuance of the 100th unit. Any crossings must occur at crosswalks. The Board finds the applicant must modify Phase 11 to connect to O’Brien Farm Road extension by removing a portion of Phase 12 and adding it to Phase 11. Based on comments from the Director of Public Works, the Board finds if discharges of sediment and nutrients are leaving the site then a new phase may not commence until the issues are corrected and the site stabilized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or his designee. Compliance with the construction general permit shall be a condition of this approval. B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS The following section addresses additional general (14.06) and specific (14.07) site plan review standards. 14.06 General Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds this criterion met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. #SD-22-10 8 8 of 48 C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Board has addressed each element of these and related criteria in detail below. Transitions from Structure to Structure Resident Club: The Board found at preliminary plat that additional details of the building and site design were required at final plat, including the requirement to design the homes on Lot 33 to have the appearance of fronts from both Mabel Way (formerly referred to as Legacy Farm Ave) and from the sidewalk to the rear. The Board discouraged a heavy buffer in this area and instead noted the landscaping should encourage the homes on Lot 33 to use Lot 32 as their neighborhood play area. The applicant has provided fronts facing both Mabel Way and the sidewalk within the recreational space for six of the nine homes. The landscaping has gaps to allow view of the homes. There are no walkways between the homes and the open space area. The below screenshot is of the face of the six homes that would face the park. The Board finds this condition to have been addressed. Homes on Leo Lane: At the North end of Leo Lane (formerly known as Meadow Loop) the applicant is proposing units in what approximates a “cottage court” configuration with rear loaded driveways. What makes something a cottage court is a central common space that is clearly defined and made inviting for use by the residents. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must refine this design to provide a thoughtfully designed central common space, and demonstrate that the architectural design of these homes is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The below screenshot is the front of the cottage homes. #SD-22-10 9 9 of 48 The applicant has reduced the number of homes from six to five, and has arranged the homes around a central green with walkways leading to the front of each home. The Board finds transitions in this area to be satisfactory. Further, the Board found the applicant must provide a crosswalk from the cross-lot sidewalk south of the cottage court to the sidewalk on Meadow Loop. The applicant has instead relocated the sidewalk to be on the same side as the homes. The sidewalk was previously on the west side of Leo Lane, requiring crossing of more driveways. As modified, there are fewer driveways to cross and the sidewalk directly connects to two pedestrian access points to the adjacent Hillside development. The Board approves the sidewalk as revised. Homes on Mabel Way: At preliminary plat, of the available single family home types, SF-5 was the only one which has a garage protruding past the front of the home. In order to promote cohesiveness of the neighborhood, the Board required the applicant to modify the architecture to reduce the prominence of the garage relative to the porch/home. The Board finds this condition to have been addressed. Adequacy of Planting Plantings are reviewed in detail under 13.04 below. The Board’s preliminary plat findings required the applicant to prioritize plantings in the manner recommended by the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee (to support wildlife passage using a densely planted corridor populated with native species) and this criterion while balancing the connectivity needs discussed elsewhere in this decision. The applicant has provided a number of plantings connecting the wetlands in the I/O zoning district to the southern-most property line. The Board finds the comments of the NRCC to have been addressed and planting to be adequate. Safe pedestrian movement The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee recommended at preliminary plat “the addition of park benches, street trees, public art features, etc. along sidewalks and shared use paths.” Further, they offer that “the committee is fine with the internal connectivity except as noted [pertaining to Old Farm Road]. This assumes that all stairways include ramps for ADA uses, bicycles and strollers.” The Board preliminary plat findings indicate that the applicant shall strive to include ADA compliant ramps where stairs exist and shall include equitable access in all cases. The applicant has provided on #SD-22-10 10 10 of 48 the landscaping plans a red hatch showing where paths meet ADA requirements; these areas are limited due to the underlying topography of the site but provide alternatives to stairs where stairs are included. The applicant is proposing to end the recreation path on Kimball Ave prior to the property line, citing permitting costs for crossing a wetland. There is an existing path on Kimball Ave that begins approximately 100 ft south of the project limit. City of South Burlington has performed a feasibility study to connect the project area to the existing path. The Board finds the applicant shall modify their plans to bend the end of the proposed segment of recreation path to the roadway to facilitate future City construction of “quick build” alternatives identified in the feasibility study, and that the alignment of the recreation path in this location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works for consistency with the City’s current plan for connection prior to issuance of a zoning permit for its construction. Adequacy of parking areas The applicant has slightly reduced non-driveway parking compared to preliminary plat. There are four spaces at the dog park where there were previously proposed to be seven. The applicant indicated on 7/19 that the dog park committee was satisfied with the provided plan. The Board finds the applicant shall modify the plans to provide a temporary gravel area suitable for parking of at least four cars in the C1-LR district adjacent to the dog park, as overflow from the dog park will likely occur in the C1-LR once it is constructed. Connections/Transitions between Project and Hillside As proposed, there is only one vehicular connection between the properties, located at the north end of the development area, and two off-road sidewalk connections. Hillside contains 158 homes in the single family, duplex and triplex development area to the south (Hillside Phase 1). Development in the Industrial-Commercial zoning district could potentially result in 910,000 sf of commercial space. The Board finds that on balance, the disadvantages of connecting the Eastview Development to Hillside at the south end of the project outweighed the advantages at this time. Given the potential scale of the commercial development in the I/C zoning district, additional connections between the project and Hillside may be required in future phases of the PUD. Connections/Transitions between Project and Tilley Drive area The Official Map shows a north-south connection between approximate mid-point of Tilley Drive and Kimball Ave, roughly where the applicant has shown the central walking path and open space area between the proposed homes and the Industrial-Commercial Area. The Natural Resources and Conservation Committee provided comments that the official map roadway is located in an area well suited for wildlife connectivity. 24 V.S.A. § 4421 requires reservation of lands designated for roads on the official map, but allows the Board to make minor changes to locations of roads at the time as the parcel containing the future roadway is reviewed. LDR 15.12D(4) requires that roadways be constructed to the property line if the DRB finds that a connection to the adjacent property may or could occur in the future. In order to minimize impacts to natural resources, the applicant has proposed a feasible connection between I/C Road and the Tilley Drive PUD in an alternative location to that shown on the official map, which the Board finds to be acceptable. Connections/Transitions between R1 and I/C zone: The Official Map calls for an “appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an immediately adjacent area.” #SD-22-10 11 11 of 48 The applicant has testified there is a 10% average slope between the proposed Potash Road and Mabel Way and therefore a vehicular connection is not feasible. Instead, they have proposed a pedestrian connection only. They’ve also provided Barn Road as a stub off Mabel Way which can connect to the Potash on the adjacent property at a more gentle slope if/when that parcel is developed. The Board finds that on balance, the disadvantages of providing a vehicular connection the I/C zone to the R1 zone outweigh the advantages at this time. The absence of a vehicular connection in this location places more importance on the vehicular connection to the Tilley Drive PUD for both Potash Road and Barn Road, and therefore the Board finds both roadways and associated infrastructure must be extended to the property line. The applicant must revise the plans to extend Barn Road and associated infrastructure to the property line. The Board finds the pedestrian connection between Potash Road and Mabel Way must be constructed as accessible to non-pedestrian non-motor vehicle traffic including bicycles and strollers, and shall be provided with a visual break so as to obviate and make the path comfortable to use. The visual break shall be maintained for the duration of the use. C1-LR Zoning District The applicant has requested approval for the subdivision of land and roadway design within the C1-LR zoning district, as well as a number of waivers. In support of this request, they have provided a proposed regulatory framework and a list of nine commitments, as well as a conceptual plan for development of that area. The purpose statement of the C1-Limited Retail district is as follows: A. Purpose. A Commercial 1 with Limited Retail C1-LR District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the city, to serve nearby residential areas. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of local residents and employees. Their location and design are intended to make them accessible both by motorized vehicle and by foot, thereby somewhat reducing traffic volume in the immediate vicinity. In these areas, businesses offering goods and services will be limited in allowed floor area and use. Such regulations generally follow existing Commercial 1 District regulations. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The applicant has arranged their conceptual development such that the short facades of buildings are along Old Farm Road, which results in the long axes of the buildings being at a single grade, and has located parking along Kennedy and Kimball Ave. The Board is supportive of this configuration and is also supportive of the residential transition areas and the unifying elements in each block (the plaza on the west and the green corridor on the east). Parking must be located to the side or rear of buildings except in limited circumstances, and this criterion is not waivable. The applicant’s concept includes parking along Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave. Given the topography of the site, the Board finds the applicant may apply LDR 14.06B(2)(c) on an aggregate basis across the block defined by Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave, Old Farm Road, and O’Brien Farm Road (the western C1-LR block), and separately across the block defined by Old Farm Road, Kimball Ave, and O’Brien Farm Road extension, if the parking is at least 20-ft higher than the adjoining road surface and generally level with the finish floor elevation of the adjoining buildings (with allowances for grading for drainage) and the parking complies with LDR 14.06B(2)(c): Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of the building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half the width of all building(s) located at the building. #SD-22-10 12 12 of 48 In future applications, the applicant will be subject to the LDRs applicable at the time of that application. Under the now-current LDR, this standard is changed to require the total width of parking to be no greater than the total width of buildings and civic spaces (increased from one half). It is the Board’s intent that the amended version of 14.06B(2)(c) (as renumbered) be applied to future applications on a block by block basis. The applicant has proposed a “Mixed Use Design Guide,” consisting of a set of dimensional standards. The Board finds the applicant shall modify the Mixed Use Design Guide in the following ways. 1. The applicant is proposing standards for primary and secondary facades, and has proposed to define the primary façade as the façade facing the primary pedestrian way. The Board finds the primary facades shall include those which face the central organizing features and those which face Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road. Several buildings will have multiple facades that should be considered as primary facades. In the conceptual layout provided by the applicant, Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave would not be considered primary facades. 2. The C1-LR zoning district has a maximum of four stories, and the applicant has requested a waiver to allow five stories, with underground parking not being considered a story even if it is fully exposed on one side. The LDR defines a basement as a story when the finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than four feet above the average pre-construction level of the adjoining ground or more than twelve feet above the pre-construction ground level at any point. The Board finds the LDR definition to be appropriate and does not approve the applicant’s request, though the applicant may request a case by case waiver, which the Board intends to approve when the garage is substantially below grade and would appear to a casual observer to not meet the definition of a story. The Board finds the applicant must revise the Mixed Use Design Guide to remove the statement that underground parking not be considered a story. 3. The applicant has listed a maximum of 5-stories in the design guide, but has indicated a maximum of 4 stories on the illustrative C1-LR concept. The Board finds the applicant shall revise the Mixed Use Design Guide to have a maximum of 4-stories. This shall not preclude garages compliant with #2 above. 4. The applicant has requested reduced setbacks to 5-ft front and side yard and 10-ft rear yard. However there is no maximum setback. The Board finds the applicant’s statement that “The Project building and parking frontage deviates by no more the 25% from the conceptual distances provided on any given side/street frontage at Exhibit 016.1.” shall be modified to state “building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more than 25% of the conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01.” 5. The applicant has proposed 2 surface spaces maximum for residential units, with parking for commercial uses “as required by use.” The Board finds the applicant shall modify this standard for commercial uses to be “as required by Land Development Regulations.” The Board finds the modified “design guide,” consisting of a set of dimensional standards, shall apply to future development of the sixteen (16) lots not currently proposed for development within the C1-LR zoning district, provided development remains consistent with the following nine characteristics. i. The Project provides a central pedestrian‐oriented streetscape to foster community and create a sense of place within the C1‐LR development area. Design elements to be of a similar aesthetic as outlined at Exhibit 015. ii. The Project features a central design element (plaza) as a gathering space, designed in the spirit of images provided at Exhibit 015. #SD-22-10 13 13 of 48 iii. The Project focuses services, retail and commercial development on the northern block, and residential, senior housing and hospitality development on the southern blocks in large part, with limited exceptions. iv. The Project provides a residential transition between the R1 and C1‐LR lands that creates a desirable transition for the Eastview neighborhood. v. The Project site layout, landscaping, and building architecture provide an urban, pedestrian‐oriented design aesthetic in accordance with character imagery submitted at Exhibit 015 and Exhibit 016.1 vi. Streetscape elements include a variety of different materials, brick, colored concrete, asphalt paving, granite curbing, designed to create a sense of place with examples illustrated at Exhibit 015 and 016. vii. The Project will create landscape and hardscape connections to Kennedy Drive, fostering a pedestrian connection with the existing neighborhoods to the north and west. viii. Project parking adjacent to Kennedy Drive will be heavily screened with dense plantings. ix. The Project building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more than 25% of the conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01. 14.06B(2) Parking The Board is prohibited by 15.02A(4) from granting waivers of this criterion even in the case of a PUD. (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The development review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more or of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ii) the parking area will serve a single or two-family home Most of the parking falls under this exemption. (iii) and (iv) Not applicable (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation The Board finds that as configured, the Resident Club (open space Lot 32) to be principally for public recreation and accepts the parking as proposed. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: 1 This language is slightly augmented from the applicant’s suggested language to specify that site layout is an integral component of the design aesthetic #SD-22-10 14 14 of 48 A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Business Park North Lot 4: The preliminary plat finding was for the applicant to include an off-road footpath across this lot for a future trail network. The purpose is to, over time, create a walking path along the south side of Potash Brook and is shown on the City’s official map. Due to designation of Lot 4 as a sensitive archaeological resource area, the applicant has removed proposed development from this lot as a change from preliminary plat. The applicant has provide a 20- ft easement in the location of the future trail as shown on the City’s official map. The Board finds since no development is proposed, a simple easement is sufficient. See additional findings pertaining to access under 14.06B(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Proposed utilities are underground. Old Farm Road is currently served by overhead utility lines. The applicant is proposing to relocate the lines underground through the project area, but it does not appear provision has been made for connecting to the existing home located at 200 Old Farm Road. The Board finds the applicant must modify the plans to provide for connection of the existing home to the relocated utility line. The telecom cabinet on Lot 42 conflicts with the proposed driveway. The Board finds the applicant must modify the plans to relocate the cabinet outside the right of way. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No solid waste disposal areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. This criterion was not reviewed in detail at preliminary plat. 13.06A Purpose [excerpt]. Street tree planting shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. In evaluating landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species. The applicant has provided street tree planting. The Board finds the applicant shall plant trees as shown on the approved plans. Street tree locations may be modified provided they result in the same general spacing and layout should homes be mirrored from what is shown on the plan. 13.06B. Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including #SD-22-10 15 15 of 48 ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties. The applicable parking areas are limited to those at the barn amenity and at the dog park. (1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. The Board finds this criterion met. At the dog park amenity, the area where landscaping would be located is not yet programmed (will be the perimeter of the C1-LR zoning district). There is an area of existing trees proposed to be retained. The Board finds that additional plantings may be required at the time of development in the C1-LR zoning district but it would be premature to require them at this time due to the likelihood of the trees being disturbed due to anticipated development on those lots. (2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking. Not applicable. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. Parking areas are proposed to be curbed. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) Landscaping Requirements (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. More than 5 trees are provided for the 17-space barn amenity therefore this criterion is met. Fewer than 5 spaces are provided at the dog park therefore this criterion is met. (c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball. #SD-22-10 16 16 of 48 Paring lot trees are proposed to be greater than 2 ½ inches. This criterion is met. (d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking lot and the site. Fewer than ten parking lot trees are proposed, therefore this criterion is not applicable. However, the Board typically applies this criterion to entire sites, not just parking lots. The Board finds this criterion to be met for the project as a whole. (5) Planting islands – Not applicable (6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. The applicant has not specified snow storage areas. However, the Board finds that since each parking area is to serve an open space, snow storage is not an issue. Snow storage for the project streets will be along the green strip between street and sidewalk, recreation path, or property line, as applicable. 13.06C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use. The applicant requested a waiver at preliminary plat related to the requirement to screen between adjacent properties. They requested that screening between commercial and non-residential uses be allowed to be on either the residential or the commercial lot. The Board accepted this waiver request, but on more detailed review of this criterion, finds no waiver to be necessary as there is no requirement as to which lot contain the screening. Utility cabinets are required to be screened with evergreens, a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. The applicant has proposed screening for utility cabinets within the residential area but has not shown screening of utility cabinets in the commercial and industrial areas. The Board finds utility cabinet screening must be provided when development occurs on lots containing or adjacent to approved utility cabinets. 13.06G. Landscaping Standards (3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-9 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. The required minimum landscaping value is calculated based on the cost of buildings on shared lots. Single family homes and duplexes on their own lots are not subject to minimum landscaping budget requirements. The provided landscaping value excludes the value of street trees. The Board has #SD-22-10 17 17 of 48 also excluded the value of foundation plantings for the homes from the landscaping value because the applicant has requested that foundation plantings not be required to be retained for the duration of the use. This is discussed below under landscaping maintenance. The applicant has provided a computation of required minimum landscaping budget and provided landscaping value. No homes on their own lot are proposed, and the computations correctly exclude street trees. The applicant has also indicated that the value of proposed plantings outside of the red line on the landscaping plan are excluded from the provided value. They do not intend to install these plantings until such time as the development occurs in those areas. The areas outside the red line include the dog park, the walking trail through the I/C zoning district, and the street trees on Potash Road. This decision establishes phasing for the dog park. The landscaping in the dog park is required as part of the construction of the dog park regardless of whether it contributes to the required minimum landscaping budget. The required minimum landscaping value for 155 homes with a building cost of $52,700,000 is $534,500. The applicant is proposing the following landscaping. Trees $526,675.00 Tree Whips $5,950.00 Shrubs $146,710.00 Perennials & Grasses $22,233.00 Total $701,568.00 Required Minimum $534,500.00 The Board finds the required minimum landscaping to be met. The applicant has requested the Board allow the excess landscaping expenditure to be applied as credit towards future phases, and has also requested the landscaping be allowed to be provided anywhere within the PUD. The Board finds the excess landscaping expenditure to be allowed as credit towards future phases of the O’Brien Eastview project anywhere within the PUD, so long as required landscaping standards including those pertaining to screening are met. In other words, the Board may permit landscaping required for construction of a building to be installed in a park, but they are not required to if such an approval would result in the building site being poorly landscaped. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the requested amount of credit is available at the time of each application for which they wish to use the credit. The Board made the following relevant finding at preliminary plat, which the Board continues to hold as a finding of this final plat. Landscaping design shall result in the following criteria being met. • each lot must be adequately landscaped • each lot must have a reasonably proportionate amount of open space, with adequate landscaping • the landscaping shall not be inconsistent with the development program approved by the Board Further pursuant to landscaping in the dog park, the applicant has proposed a wooded area to remain, but has not identified specific trees or specific tree preservation measures which will be employed. The wooded area to remain separates the entrance from the main portion of the dog park. To facilitate functionality of the dog park, the Board finds trees above 6” diameter at breast #SD-22-10 18 18 of 48 height (DBH) shall be retained, and limbs below 8-ft from the ground shall be removed. Such annotation shall be added to the plans. The applicant has proposed additional wooded areas to remain on Lot 124 between the residential area and the I/C zoning district. The Board finds the applicant must indicate limits of tree clearing on the erosion prevention and sediment control plans. Without this information, the location of the limit of work fence appears arbitrary and subject to relocation. 13.06I. Landscaping Maintenance The applicant has requested that non tree and shrub vegetation around the buildings be allowed to be modified by the occupants of the homes. The Board does not consider the individual building landscaping to be necessary to create the type of development stipulated by the LDR and reviewed by the Board and has accordingly not considered plantings around the homes to be part of the required minimum landscaping budget. Therefore vegetation shown on sheet L301 Typical Unit Planting Layouts and Guidelines may be altered at the discretion of the applicant or the occupants of the homes. E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. At preliminary plat the applicant provided a list of 25 requested waivers. Some of the applicant’s requested waivers have been incorporated into this decision as applicable, while others were determined to not be applicable at a previous stage of review. The remaining applicable waiver requests are discussed below. Setbacks: The applicant has requested the Board approve setbacks to that shown on the plans with a minimum residential setback of 5-ft. The Board finds this to be a problematic proposal for three reasons. First, the City does not recognize footprint lots. Second, the homes are depicted as being set back 10-ft or more on the provided plans. Third, the applicant is proposing a range of home types be allowed to be built on each lot and therefore limiting the applicant to what is shown will necessarily limit their available offerings. Instead, the Board approves a front setback of 10-ft, with open porches or decks less than 12-ft in depth allowed to encroach into the front setback up to 5-ft. Side and rear setbacks may be 5-ft. For street-facing garages, there must be exactly or more than 20 ft between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car without overhanging the traveled way, or the distance must be less than one car length between the face of the garage and the street (ie a car could not park in the driveway without being in the street). The Board further approves a front setback of 5-ft for the following lots: 20-3 20-4 20-6 20-21 20-23 20-24 20-26 #SD-22-10 19 19 of 48 Heights: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement that building heights on commercial lots be no more than one story higher than adjacent residential buildings. The Board approves this waiver, with the condition that the approved Mixed Use Design Guide will be followed for development of the applicable lots. Porches: The applicant requests that all single family, duplex and three family homes may convert their porches to covered porches with only the issuance of a zoning permit. Porches are generally considered to be covered and constitute building footprint, while decks are uncovered and do not count as building footprint, though they do count as lot coverage. The Board finds adding or replacing porch roofs and creating screen porches does not require PUD amendment. Process Waivers: The applicant requests that sketch plan and preliminary plat not be required for subsequent applications within the PUD, and that site plan review be allowed instead of final plat review for single buildings on single lots. The LDRs reserve the authority to grant procedural waivers to applications for master plan as described in 15.07D(2). As there is no master plan, this waiver request is not appropriate and the Board denied the request at the preliminary plat level. The Board notes that the applicant’s request is not necessarily for a waiver, but instead is for the Board to establish a procedure for review of projects within the PUD. The Board finds, as part of this final plat decision, that site plan review is allowed by right for single buildings on single lots. Under the LDR applicable to this decision, all modifications of lot lines or applications involving multiple lots require subdivision review, including sketch and preliminary plat. However, since there is no vesting, any future amendments to the PUD would be reviewed under the PUD in effect at the time of application. The latest LDR has a process by which subdivision amendments (of which PUD amendments are a subset) are categorized as minor or major, which would apply to future applications within this PUD. Parking: The applicant made the following request: Applicant requests a finding that parking may be permitted with only site plan and conditional use review in the context of site plan review for a building on any approved lot in the PUD. The applicant explained they are asking to be allowed to permit shared parking on an adjacent lot when no other development is proposed on that lot. The Board notes such a configuration would not be allowed with individual site plans such as requested in waiver requests 18-20. The Board finds this to be allowed if the following additional criteria are met: • Parking must be to the sides and rear of existing or proposed buildings; and, • Parking without a building shall be allowed for three (3) years without a development proposal, otherwise the applicant shall be required to install buffering. A buffering plan shall be submitted at the time of application for parking on a lot not otherwise proposed to be developed, and surety for the proposed buffer shall be provided in accordance with 15.15 at the time of zoning permit issuance for construction of the parking. Sureties: LDR 15.15A requires provision of a surety for the full cost of public infrastructure, including street trees. LDR 15.15B requires provision of a surety for a portion of the cost of required landscaping. The LDR does not require DRB review of the structure of sureties, therefore the Boards findings are limited. Specifically, the Board finds the applicant may obtain a separate zoning permit for site preparation for each of the approved phases of the development that require significant regrading. The surety for such site preparation shall be the cost of site restoration, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, and not the cost of full project completion of that phase. Should the #SD-22-10 20 20 of 48 applicant avail themselves of this option, they must later increase the surety value at such time as they seek zoning permit approval for construction of that phase. I/C Zoning District: the applicant requests waiver of the requirement that construction in the IC zoning district have common elements with the remainder of the PUD. The specific standards are as follows. 14.06B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. 14.06C Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant noted that the approved uses in the I/C cover a broad range, and therefore the function of the buildings may not lend themselves to matching residential structure. The Board notes this criterion does not require industrial buildings to look like single family homes, but to prevent the industrial buildings from being disharmonious with the residential buildings. The Board found at preliminary plat that there are a number of ways to meet these criteria. The presence of an intervening open space and roadway reduces the needed reliance on architectural similarity. Common elements can be complimentary without needing to be exactly the same. The site design should also support complimentary relationships. The Board denied the requested waiver at the preliminary plat stage of review. The applicant at this final plat stage of review is requesting more robust findings. The Board finds the preliminary plat finding to be sufficiently descriptive to establish the expectations for how these criteria will be met, and, in addition, since development on the lands within the I/C zoning district is not proposed at this time, they will be subject to the LDR in effect at the time of application. The currently effective LDR significant modifies and explains these criteria. F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. The City Stormwater Section provided comments on the 10/26/2022 plans on 11/4/2022. The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Eastview” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 4/1/22 and last updated on 10/21/2022. We would like to offer the following comments: #SD-22-10 21 21 of 48 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The applicant should be aware that the existing City ordinance places restrictions on the City’s ability to accept stormwater treatment infrastructure that serves commercial property. 3. The landscaping plan should not include any plantings within the stone of the emergency spillway. Additionally, remove any trees within the footprint of the gravel wetlands. 4. Sheet L-119: It appears that there is a tree in the reinforced maintenance access, which should be removed. 5. Back flow prevents are recommended for all footing drains that connect to drainage infrastructure that is proposed for public acceptance. 6. The applicant should ensure that pervious pavers are appropriately protected during construction so that their ability to infiltrate is protected. 7. Provide a detail for the “stabilized grass maintenance drive” indicated in various places throughout the plans. 8. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The Board finds the applicant must modify the plans to address comments 3, 4, and 7 as a condition of approval. The other comments are incorporated as ongoing conditions. The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 11/3/2022 and offers the following additional comments pertaining to stormwater. 1. Existing City ordinance does not allow the stormwater utility to accept maintenance responsibility for stormwater treatment practices that receive runoff form non-residential properties. In the future, these properties may seek State coverage under the City’s MS4 permit, but maintenance remains the responsibility of the property owner(s). 2. It is recommended that all homes with footing / foundation drains connected to proposed future public infrastructure have back flow preventers installed. 3. Landscaping should not show trees / shrubs over emergency overflows (e.g. L203, L204, etc). Landscaping must be installed such that maintenance access routes are open and free of plantings. 4. C-6.1 – Ensure that pervious pavers are appropriately protected during construction so that their ability to infiltrate is protected. 5. C-7 – Are the plans missing a piece of pipe between the storm drain with rim at 353 and the storm drain with rim at 337.71? Labels are visible, but no pipe line is shown. Is the piece of pipe between the storm drains with rim at 353 new or existing? Provide pipe material and size. Replace if existing. Same comment for pipe between CBs with rim at 337.71. 6. Many of the proposed stormwater treatment practices do not have emergency spillways. Where will water flow if the outlet pipes clog or fail? 7. C-20 – Include a summary table by sub-catchment with basic information about the drainage area (e.g. drainage area size, proposed impervious surface, and any other relevant info). This will prevent reviewers from having to refer to modeling to obtain this information. #SD-22-10 22 22 of 48 8. Is there a detail for the “stabilized grass maintenance drive” indicated in various places throughout the plans? The Board finds the applicant shall address comments 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as a condition of approval. The other comments are incorporated as ongoing conditions. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. See above under transportation C) 15.18A SUBDIVSION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS These criteria apply to both the portion of the project proposed for development at this time and the commercial lots proposed for subdivision but not development. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the proposed 155 homes. The Board finds no allocation for the commercial lots to be necessary at this time. The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the plans on October 29, 2022. I have reviewed the proposed project Site and Utility plans relative to water infrastructure and developed the following comments. Given the size of this project and the site-specific comments, I plan to meet with the engineer to address these comments directly. All Sheets: 1. Curb stops must not be placed in driveways or sidewalks. 2. All gate valves located at tee’s shall be anchored to the tees in accordance with the CWD Specifications. 3. Transitioning from one pipe material to another must occur at a gate valve. 4. In-Line valves should be placed approximately 500’ from nearest valves. 5. All sheets need better identification of water main sizes and materials. 6. See CWD Specifications for pipe bedding requirements and include in the project details. Sheet: C-2: 1. The water line from Split Rock Ct. to Leo Lane will require a City ROW or easement if not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location. Sheet C-3: 1. The water line from Leo Lane to Old Farm Road will require a City ROW or easement if not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location. Sheet C-4 1. The water line from the stub to Leo Lane will require a City ROW or easement if not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location. #SD-22-10 23 23 of 48 2. Mabel Way-Is there a reason for the in-line valve location being located here? Transition of pipe materials? Sheet C-4 1. Add one gate valve at O’Brien Farm Road-Old Farm Road intersection for a total of five or move one valve from the “O’Brien Farm Rd east side. Discuss with engineer. Sheet C-6 1. The water line outside of the city street ROW will require a City ROW or easement if not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location. Sheet C-7 1. Instead of tapping the main at Kimball Ave, a cut in tee with three (3) valves is preferred. Sheet C-10 1. Add one gate valve at the Marble Way-Old Farm Road intersection. 2. Add an in-line valve near the dead-end street, or anchor to one side of the proposed tee. Discuss with engineer. Sheet C-11 1. Add one more gate valve at tee. 2. Install temporary blow-off at end of dead-end line. Move hydrant to intersection. Sheet C-12 1. Install in-line valve on Mabel Way near Sta 6+00. Discuss with engineer. Sheet C-14 1. Secure all valves to the anchor tee. 2. The water line outside of the city street ROW will require a City ROW or easement if not already within a ROW or easement. 20’ centered on actual pipe location. Sheet C-15 1. Move gate valve and reducer to 45-degree bends. 2. Transition pipe material at the gate valve. Sheet C-16 1. Instead of tapping the main at Kimball Ave, a cut in tee with three (3) valves is preferred. 2. Install an in-line valve approximately 500’ from nearest valves, or at 8” tee. Discuss with engineer. Sheet C-17 1. Install in-line valve near station 10+00. Discuss with engineer. Sheet C-18 1. Future line to Tilley Drive? 2. Install in-line valve near station 12+00. Discuss with engineer. Sheet D-3 #SD-22-10 24 24 of 48 1. Fire service mains should be Ductile Iron pipe. Sheet D-4 1. Separate box for PVC tracer wire. Tracer wire is not permitted to come up in gate valve box. See CWD Specifications. 2. #5: Nuts and bolts are to be Cor-Blue (or approved equal). See CWD Specifications. 3. Add PVC Pipe Specification language from CWD Specifications. The applicant indicated to the South Burlington Water Director that they are able to incorporate the comments of the South Burlington Water Department into the plans. The Board finds the applicant shall make the necessary edits. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The project will be covered by an Individual Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit (IND-C) issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The Board finds the applicant must comply with the standards of LDR Article 16 where the LDR standards more restrictive than those included in the INDC. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. 15.12F(1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout. The Board finds the applicant must complete the installation of improvements on Kimball Ave, including provision of infrastructure sureties, prior to trip generation exceeding the signal warrant. There are currently bike lanes on Kimball Ave, which will be removed when the turn lanes are installed. The Board finds the approved shared use path on Kimball Ave must be complete prior to construction of intersection improvements including turn lane installation. Traffic Study: The Board finds the traffic evaluation shall be updated concurrently with the first application for development in the C1-LR or IC zoning district and again with the application occurring after each subsequent five-year interval if the commercial development varies from the uses included in this initial traffic study. Notwithstanding development, an updated traffic study shall be prepared after 10 years. Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road: The Board at preliminary plat required the applicant to provide an executable plan for a signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road. The applicant has provided a plan that shows a full signal. The Board finds the applicant shall install conduit sleeve as shown on the provided plan at the time the intersection is constructed. The applicant’s traffic study #SD-22-10 25 25 of 48 concludes no signal at this intersection is required, therefore the Board finds installation of conduit sleeve should be the limit of the applicant’s obligation for this intersection. Traffic Overlay District: The north end of Old Farm Road presently is in the Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. The applicant may not generate more than 15 vehicle trips per PM peak hour per 40,000 sf of development area at the Old Farm intersection without access management, additional connections between properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access that produces “a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project” (LDR 10.02H(1)). This calculation allows for a trip budget of 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips. The current traffic study demonstrates the development build-out projections are consistent with the traffic overlay district. Updated traffic studies should confirm the development remains in compliance with the traffic overlay district at each subsequent phase of development. Should applicant develop a program that generates more than 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips, they may at a future application provide a quantifiable demonstration of the increased capacity due to the relocation of Old Farm Road and installation of a signal at the Old Farm Road/Kimball Road intersection. (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. The applicant has updated their plans to show wetlands and wetland buffers. The applicant has updated their wetland delineation since preliminary plat and has identified an additional Class III wetland within the IC area. The applicant is proposing to impact three Class III wetlands and their buffers for the purpose of stormwater treatment. The applicant has submitted a field delineation and wetland report as required by the LDR. (5) 12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. No encroachment into Class II wetlands is proposed. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: The applicant is proposing 13,762 sf of Class III wetland impact, 2,772 sf of Class II wetland buffer impact, and 82,634 sf of Class III wetland buffer impact. (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; #SD-22-10 26 26 of 48 (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) 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 impacted wetlands were found to have low function as water storage and surface and groundwater protection/nutrient removal. The proposed impacts are for the purpose of stormwater treatment, therefore the Board finds these criteria met. (6) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. This criterion is addressed under 14.06B(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above. (7) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas The applicant is proposing 18.24 acres of active or passive recreation space plus an additional 6.96 acres of undeveloped lots not proposed for use because of encumbrance with wetlands or archaeologically sensitive sites. Other wetland and archaeological sites exist throughout the development and are distributed between the residential, commercial, and recreational lots. Some of the areas proposed to be left open are at the perimeter of the site adjacent to natural resource areas. The Board finds this criterion met. The following recreational spaces have been proposed. Location Applicant Proposal Board Finding Lot 18 Open Space public ownership The City will consider accepting ownership of this parcel one year after substantial completion as long as it meets City standards. Lot 19 Natural Play Area public ownership The City will consider accepting ownership of this parcel one year after substantial completion as long as it meets City standards. Lot 47 Dog Park, Play Area & Open Space Public Ownership The City will consider accepting ownership of this parcel upon substantial completion of all components and as long as it meets City standards. Workout Loop on Lots 44, 46, 48 Public access and maintenance agreement The City will consider accepting an easement for the trail one year after substantial completion. Barn and Community Space Public access and maintenance agreement Same as proposed #SD-22-10 27 27 of 48 The Director of Public Works provided the following comments pertaining to open space areas on 11/3/2022. • L206 - Confirm that the dog park “entry area” will be ADA accessible. Consider adding stonedust into the main park areas so that these locations are also ADA accessible. Can stonedust paths be added from entry to areas where benches are included in the park to expand the ADA accessible areas? • Specify the material under the exercise stations on the circuit training trail. My assumption is that these stations will have mulch beneath them. • The applicant should provide a concrete walk to the dog park instead of a partially concrete and partially gravel path. The entry area is indicated on the landscaping plans as ADA accessible. The Board finds the applicant shall comply with the other comments of the Director of Public Works as conditions of approval. (8) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions. The Fire Marshal reviewed the plans on November 4, 2022 and offered the following comments (paraphrased by Staff). • The 20-ft road width is problematic for emergency vehicle passage since emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles are both 10-ft wide. Eastview Lane should be signed “NO DELIVERY TRUCKS”, or similar wording compliant with MUTCD standards. • No parking signage shall be installed on both sides of the streets with appropriate signage indicating parking to be allowed where marked. There shall be at least 4 signs facing each direction on Mabel Way, 3 on Leo Lane, and at least one on each of the remaining 20-ft wide streets. • Mountable curbs shall be installed on corners as requested by Fire Department. • A 10-ft clear zone shall be established free of all vertical obstructions on each corner The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Fire Marshal as conditions of approval. (9) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. (10) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the #SD-22-10 28 28 of 48 City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. The Deputy Director of Capital Projects reviewed the plans on 11/2/2022 and offers the following comments. General Comments • Add pedestrian push button symbol to legend (all signal sheets) • Please change “new bike path” to “new shared use path” (all sheets) Exhibit 099 • Since the driveway approach will become signalized and include pedestrian signals, detectable warning surfaces should be added before the crossing on both sides of the driveway. • Relocate westbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to ~50’ before stop bar • Add eastbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign ~50’ before stop bar Exhibit 100 • Relocate westbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to at ~50’ before stop bar • Add eastbound Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) sign to ~50’ before stop bar Exhibit 106 • Pavement markings on Old Farm Road and Potash Road are shifted right on the page. Just looks like they were moved by accident, but please fix. • What is the pink line across the current Old Farm Road alignment? • Relocate Left Lane Must Turn Left (R3-7) signs to ~50’ before stop bar Exhibit 107 • Typo in “Handicap parking sign” legend entry • What is the crosshair type symbol above the “Old Farm Road” label on the lower figure? • Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road Exhibit 108 • Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road Exhibit 109 • Please show curb lines on existing (unshaded) sections of Old Farm Road • Black outline on the sidewalk between the speed hump and Daniel Drive is missing • Please add gravel path hatch to legend • Please maintain width of the first driveway off O’Brien Farm Ext. (lower figure). Current configuration may encourage people to drive on the adjacent sidewalk #SD-22-10 29 29 of 48 Exhibit 110 • It is unclear what is happening with the pavement and driveways on Eastview Lane (lower figure). Are those driveway aprons but unpaved driveways? Also, what is the hatch in this location representing? • Please add gravel path hatch to legend Exhibit 127 • Can a crosswalk across Two Brothers Drive be added at Ledge Way? Regarding the first comments on Exhibit 110, this refers to the permeable pavers for overflow parking for the homes backing on Eastview Lane. The applicant shall add this to a legend. The comment on Exhibit 127 is outside the limits of the project area and the scope of this decision. Otherwise the Board finds the applicant must address the comments of the Deputy Director of Capital Projects as conditions of approval. The Director of Public Works provided the following comments pertaining to these criteria on 11/3/2022. • The applicant is reminded that any work in the existing Old Farm Road or Kimball Avenue ROW will require a ROW access permit from the South Burlington DPW. • Record drawings shall be prepared for any infrastructure proposed for City acceptance. • All traffic signal equipment shall meet DPW specifications. • It would be helpful if plan sheets had matchlines or indicated the adjacent sheet number, so it was easy to follow piping and other features across the many sheets that make up the plan set. • C-18 – Potash Road will need an appropriate plow truck turnaround. This turn around can be discontinued at such time as the road is extended. • C-19 – Confirm that existing speed hump on Old Farm Road will remain in place. Ensure that water does not pond up behind the speed hump. The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Street segments: As noted above, Barn Road must be extended to the property line. The Director of Public Works had requested a turn-around in this location, but has accepted the suggestion that the extension beyond Daniel Drive be used as a turn around. The extreme end of Barn Road will not be plowed until such future time as it is connected to the adjacent parcel since it does not serve as access. The cul-de-sac should be signed for No Parking as it is designed to be the minimum size necessary for vehicular circulation. Curb cuts: Curb cuts on the approved plans are the approved curb cuts, and additional curb cuts shall not be permitted without a PUD amendment. In other words, modifications to curb cuts shall not be allowed to be reviewed as part of site plan review for individual lot development except for individual homes curb cuts may be slightly modified to allow homes to be mirrored from what is #SD-22-10 30 30 of 48 shown on the approved plans. Additionally, there shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between Kimball Ave and O’Brien Farm Road. No additional curb cuts beyond that for I/C Road, and those needed for infrastructure maintenance, onto Kennedy Drive or Kimball Avenue shall be permitted. Sidewalks and Recreation Paths: The Board required recreation paths to be 10-ft wide, though left room for the applicant discuss site-specific exceptions with the Board at final plat. The applicant has proposed for the recreation path to be 8-ft wide through the core of the development where the triplexes are located. The Board has reviewed and accepted the bike and pedestrian design. The fitness trail is outlined by a dashed line on either side, with a different shading indicated inside the dashed lines on the landscape plans. The applicant indicates this is the cleared area. The Board finds the applicant must modify the plans to clarify this. The applicant has indicated surface materials for pedestrian materials are called out in the pedestrian report. Some materials are called out on landscaping plans, but not on the civil drawings. Materials should be called out on the plans since the plans represent the approved condition for the project. The Board finds the applicant must correct the plans to provide this information. 15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways: The Board finds that all roads with the exception of the proposed alleys on Lots 18, 24, and 36, and the access between lots 41 and 42 in the I/C area are required to be offered for public dedication. This section was reviewed under Preliminary Plat as part of 14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards. It is equally applicable under this criterion. The applicant is proposing an east-west connection in the I/C district, between lots 41 and 42. This right-of-way is proposed to be 60- feet wide and is to address the fact that Lots 45 and 46 otherwise have no access to a road. Commercial roads are required by 15.12D(2) to be built to public roadway standards and be dedicated to the City as a public roadway. LDR 14.06 requires parking to be located to the rear or side of the building relative to the public street. The applicant is concerned that by offering a ROW, they will be required to locate parking to the rear or side relative to the ROW. The Board finds the applicants proposed ROW complies with 15.12D(2) and that the road shall be built to public roadway standards, but the road is not intended to remain a private road, as allowed under 15.12D(3)(a): The DRB may it is discretion approve a roadway to be private if the proposed roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD). Should the street no longer function as a private service road under subsequent applications for development in the IC zoning district, this finding shall be reevaluated. (11) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). See above under 14.06A Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. (12) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, #SD-22-10 31 31 of 48 this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. See discussion of similar criterion under 14.07F above. D) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The Board found at preliminary plat that if the project meets the objectives and considerations discussed elsewhere in this document, minor modification of specific dimensional standards needed to provide the well thought out and activated neighborhood design discussed herein will be granted. Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout. Density The applicant has calculated that 102.6 acre project has an available density of 452 homes based on the acreage of each included zoning district. The applicant has proposed 155 homes. The Board finds this criterion met. Setbacks Setbacks are discussed under waivers above. The Board finds the 155 homes shall have 5-ft side and rear setbacks, and 10-ft front yard setbacks, with the exception of lots 20-3, 20-4, 20-6, 20-21, 20-23, 20-24 and 20-26, which shall have 5-ft front setbacks. Additional details pertaining to setbacks are discussed under 14.07E above. Within the C1-LR, setbacks shall be as indicated in the Mixed Use Design Guide. Heights 151 homes are proposed in the R1-PRD, and 4 homes are proposed in the C1-LR. Heights in both zoning districts are limited to 28-ft for a pitched roof. The Board grants the necessary height waiver for the homes in the C1-LR to be constructed as proposed. The Board does not have the authority to grant a height waiver for the homes in the R1-PRD zoning district. The applicant has provided a table of proposed grade and potential heights measured from proposed grade based on the available homes for each lot. The existing grade differs from the proposed grade from -4.3 feet to +13.2 feet. The Board finds the applicant shall not offer the proposed home types with a height of 26.75 ft as measured from finish floor elevation to the mid point of the roof, unless they modify the height to be no greater than 25.33 ft. The homes on O’Brien Farm Road extension do not meet maximum height and must be removed from the plans. The applicant may later apply for approval of these homes if the regulations change to allow height waiver or if the homes are modified to meet height requirements in place at the time of such future application. For the remaining homes, the Board finds the perception walking through the neighborhood will be of homes that meet the required 28-ft maximum, as measured to the mid-point of the roof, and grants the following alteration of existing grade pursuant to LDR 3.12. #SD-22-10 32 32 of 48 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for Approval. (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant has submitted the required materials. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The Board finds no duration to be necessary, and phasing to be adequately addressed by the applicant’s phasing plan, as amended above. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. The Board finds the proposed conditions plans shall constitute the approved rehabilitation plans. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. The Board finds no additional sureties beyond that otherwise required for the project to be required. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The Board finds pre-construction grade for the homes in the R1-PRD shall be measured as the average as the two streetside corners at the point where the structure meets the proposed finish grade of the surrounding earth. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the maximum height of 28-ft at the time of application for each zoning permit. #SD-22-10 33 33 of 48 Lot Size The homes are proposed on shared lots therefore minimum lot size does not apply. The applicant has proposed footprint lots. The City does not recognize footprint lots. The footprint lots are not considered in review of this application. Easements The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 11/3/2022 and offers the following comments pertaining to easements. • All easements to the City of South Burlington are proposed and not final until such time as they are accepted by City council. Consider adding the word “proposed” to the plat and easement plan to clarify this. • Consider reconfiguring the drainage pipe on the commercial properties north of Obrien farm Road east (lots 52 to 55). Drainage infrastructure to be owned/maintained by the City should be in a public ROW. Placement along a property boundary may also be considered. However, it is unlikely that the City will accept drainage or sewer easements that run through commercial properties. Placing public easements through these lots would also limit the constructability of these lots since no structures are allowed within City easements. • The applicant should provide a temporary access and maintenance easement for the paved recreation path on Lot 47 until such time as the lot is accepted. The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Director of Public Works as a condition of approval. The applicant is proposing to create a lot without frontage, Lot 55. The Board finds the applicant must provide an access easement to the benefit of Lot 55 crossing Lot 53. E) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS B. Inclusionary Units (1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition: (a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). The applicant is proposing to construct 155 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the applicant must provide 15.5, rounded to 16, inclusionary units. At preliminary plat, the Affordable Housing Committee testified that they were happy with the applicants proposal, including the proposal to provide inclusionary units with higher bedroom counts, provided that amenities be available to all units. #SD-22-10 34 34 of 48 The applicant is proposing eight (8) four bedroom inclusionary units, where the units are considered to be four bedroom under the provision of LDR 18.01C(2)(b)(viii) which states “unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.” The applicant testified that each unit will have three bedrooms and an unfinished basement with an egress windows, or four bedrooms. The Board finds the applicant must demonstrate that each inclusionary unit meets the above test for having four bedrooms at the time of zoning permit application. The applicant has identified the following units as inclusionary: 20-2 20-5 20-8 20-11 20-16 20-19 20-23 20-25 (2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. The units are proposed to be constructed on site. (b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. (i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single building or multiple buildings. The inclusionary units are proposed to be the middle unit in the eight three-family buildings. (ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details quality of those of the market rate units in the development. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. As long as no architecture specific to inclusionary units is developed, the Board finds this criterion met. (iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; O’Brien Brothers has touted energy efficiency as in important element of this development. They testified that all units will meet the stretch code and will include measures such as additional insulation and higher efficiency fixtures. Additional costs will be required for measures such as solar panels and heat pumps. The Board finds this criterion met. (iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units. #SD-22-10 35 35 of 48 The units planned to be affordable are 1,462 sf, therefore this criterion is met. (v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style. The Board’s considers this criterion as restricting inclusionary units to buildings with no more than four units and with the appearance of single family homes. The Board finds this criterion met. (vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units. The Board finds this criterion met. (vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit. The applicant has provided a chart demonstrating compliance with this criterion. In summary, 12% of the offered floor plans are for two bedroom units, while 75% of the offered floor plans are for three bedroom units and 13% of the offered floor plans are for four bedroom units. 100% of the inclusionary units will be four bedroom units. The Board finds this criterion met, though the applicant is still obligated under this criterion to update this computation at each interval of 50 dwelling units. (viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner. This criterion is addressed under 18.01B(1)(a) above. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units. The inclusionary units are proposed in the first phase that includes dwelling units. However, since the applicant has requested that subsequent phases be allowed to proceed concurrently with the first phase, the Board finds that 25% of the inclusionary units shall be constructed and made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on for each additional 25% construction. This condition need not come into play unless things evolve in a different manner than the applicant is anticipating. D. Affordability Requirements The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary #SD-22-10 36 36 of 48 units under this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and purchase prices is updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Vermont specific data is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by income and household size”. Refer to this table in administration of this section. This section pertains to monthly housing, which may not exceed one twelfth of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit as measured in number of bedrooms. It also requires utility costs to be included. Income eligibility must be determined based on Annual Median Income of no more than 100% Area Median Income targets as measured by HUD. Administration of continued compliance with these criteria is delegated to the City Manager or their designees. The Board finds that the applicant must provide the required deed restrictions for continued affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit. F) 13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS The applicant is proposing a “gravel extraction area” and construction staging area on Potash Road. They have revised their proposal to also include a soil stockpile and fill area on the far west of the PUD near Potash Brook. The gravel extraction and construction staging area is currently the steepest portion of the Industrial/Commercial zone, is presently wooded, and abuts a large area of Class II wetland. Without any plans for development, the applicant is proposing significant regrading of this area, including blasting to remove ledge. The applicant at preliminary plat provided extensive discussion of why they believe this ledge blasting is advantageous including that the blasting “will facilitate a much more level and aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create a buildable site shielded from view of Old Farm Road.” Since no commercial development is proposed at this time, the Board found this proposed ledge removal through blasting shall be reviewed under 13.16 pertaining to resource extraction, as well as the specific noise and vibration standards of LDR Appendix A, as well as separate Public Nuisance Ordinances and included specific conditions to be addressed at final plat. 13.16 Earth Products A. General Requirements. The conduct of a resource extraction operation that involves the removal of loam, gravel, stone, fill, topsoil, sod or similar substance, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a building on the same lot, shall be permitted in any district, except as limited by the Surface Water Protection Standards and Interstate Highway Overlay District, subject to site plan approval by the Development Review Board after public notice. The Board finds these standards apply. The applicant has provided an assessment of proposed blasting operations and noise impacts due to crushing of materials. B. Site Plan Requirements. An application for the removal of more than twenty (20) cubic yards within one (1) calendar year period shall include the submittal of a site plan showing the area from which earth products are to be removed. Also, the application shall include specific information pertaining to the following factors and such other information as the Development Review Board may require. At minimum, the following information shall be required: (1) Depth of excavation, in proximity to roads or adjacent properties. Maximum depth of cut is 25-ft. (2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material. #SD-22-10 37 37 of 48 This is shown on Sheet Q-4. Cross sections are also provided. (3) Effect upon public health and safety. (4) Creation of a nuisance. (5) Effect upon the use of adjacent properties by reason of noise, dust or vibration. Noise: The applicant has prepared a noise study evaluating the impacts of rock crushing operations. The applicant is proposing to blast materials and crush them on site for use as foundation materials for the proposed development. The study concludes that continuous noise levels from drilling and rock crushing will be below ambient levels. The applicant testified that noise from blasting itself is not an impactful component of blasting; vibration and air overpressure impact is what people notice. The applicant testified that they prepared a full noise analysis of impacts of necessary blasting for each residence, distinct from blasting for rock crushing, which was not part of their submission. The ongoing noise level will exceed 55 dB (ambient) for homes by around 10 days, but not the same homes at the same 10 days. They've limited the vibration levels to half of industry standard. Further lowering the allowable vibration levels does not functionally lower risk of damage. They will be doing construction at the same time as the blasting, and expect blasting for the homes to be around 120 days Dust: The applicant has stated that dust will not be a problem due to the location of the area relative to existing development. Dust is proposed to be controlled by use of water, and drill machines are proposed to be equipped with dust collectors. Vibration: The applicant has provided a blast impact assessment, which includes the following statement as to vibrations. Vibrations may be noticeable and therefore may result in complaints, at PPVs as low as 0.02 to 0.06 in/sec. This is equivalent to the vibrations generated from a heavy truck traveling down a bumpy road, and vibrations of this magnitude should be expected for neighboring residences Experience has shown that blasting operations in locations such as the Project will be felt by neighbors and that the impacts will feel significant, even if they are well below the design standard. There is no correlation between the design standard that is studied and documented to be safe for structures, and the human experience of vibration in their home. The Project Owner is keenly aware of this, having experience from the Phase I blasting operations. It is impossible to set a design standard for blasting that is imperceptible as the blasts would be too small to make meaningful progress, but this Project has set its design standard at 50% of the levels we know to cause damage, well below what is required. We believe that this reduction in allowable vibration is meaningful, will greatly reduce the perception of vibrations for neighbors, and will eliminate the risk of damage to surrounding structures. The Board finds no additional review of vibration to be necessary. (6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical damage on public ways. The applicant has stated that they will be using “haul roads,” shown on EPSC sheets 12, 14, 15, and 17, to truck material to and from the construction staging area. Additional discussion of haul roads is below. (7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover. #SD-22-10 38 38 of 48 The applicant is proposing to use a sediment trap to control runoff. This project will be subject to a state individual permit for stormwater runoff from construction sites, which will impose design requirements on sediment control measures. The applicant has indicated that the area could be potentially used for construction staging for as long as 15 years. The applicant has proposed to vegetate the site six months after when rock removal and crushing operations are complete. City erosion control measures require the following. 16.03B Erosion and Sediment Control (1) The smallest practical area of land should be exposed at any one time during development. When land is exposed during development, the exposure should be kept to the shortest practical period of time. Areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilization within 21 days of initial disturbance. (2) Land shall not be left exposed between October 15 and April 15. (3) Where necessary, temporary vegetation and/or mulching and structural measures shall be required by the Development Review Board to protect areas exposed during the development. (4) Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed and maintained during development to remove sediment from run off water and from land undergoing development. (5) The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as practical in the subdivision. Exposed soil must be seeded and mulched or covered with erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading. (6) Adequate and permanent measures shall be taken at culvert outfalls to minimize or prevent erosion and disruption of drainageway areas. The Board finds the applicant must comply with the timelines in the City’s erosion and sediment control measures. Where bare rock is left exposed, or excavation is within a fully contained depression, erosion control measures are not necessary. The Board at preliminary plat required the applicant submit following additional information regarding earth products as part of their final plat application. a. specific impacts and durations (both overall and frequency of operations) The applicant has indicated that 70,000 cubic yards of materials are proposed to be removed in cuts up to 25-ft. They estimate 75 days of drilling and blasting. Drilling and blasting will not occur continuously but instead will have delay windows while equipment is repaired. They anticipate 5 – 10 blasts per week. The applicant is planning on the 75 days being as reasonably contiguous as possible. The blasting shall occur in the winter months (November – April) both within and outside the gravel extraction area in two phases either a few months apart or a winter apart. The applicant’s individual permit for stormwater runoff will require the blasting to occur in two phases b. specific mitigation measures – visual, noise, dust, roadway impacts #SD-22-10 39 39 of 48 Proposed Mitigation measures are generally limited to best practices and do not seem to include site specific measures. Blasting operations are proposed to begin at 7AM and end before 5PM Monday through Friday. The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits use of power equipment or machinery, and noise resulting from construction, before 7AM. The applicant clarified that there will not be any work before 7AM. The Board finds this shall be incorporated as a condition of approval. Road closures must be coordinated with the Department of Public Works, which may limit road closures to outside peak traffic hours. Further, blasting and crushing work shall be prohibited on Federal Holidays. c. construction access road – location, plans, phasing and how it affects houses. The construction should proceed from the most remote end back towards the staging area, and be removed as construction is completed. The plan should show how construction access road is retired including timing and physical appearance. As noted above, the applicant has proposed a haul road, shown on EPSC sheets 12, 14, 15, and 17. Construction traffic shall use the haul road or approved internal roadways. The Board finds the applicant may not clear or otherwise disturb areas the following areas: - areas not otherwise disturbed, and specifically areas not otherwise approved for disturbance such as phases for which no zoning permit has yet been issued or areas within the PUD but outside the area approved for development - areas to remain vegetated - wooded areas Occasional traversing of these areas without visible resulting impacts shall be permitted. d. plan for site restoration in the event of work stoppage As noted above pertaining to erosion prevention and sediment control, the applicant is proposing to topsoil and seed the site six months after when rock removal and crushing operations are complete. C. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting its approval, may impose conditions on the following: (1) Duration of the permit for any length of time that the Development Review Board deems appropriate. The applicant has requested six years to complete the work in the construction staging area. However, they are also asking that the stone pad proposed for crushing and blasting operations be allowed to remain indefinitely as a construction staging area. They anticipate a timeline of 10- 15 years. The Board finds the construction staging area shall be restored no longer than eighteen months after the issuance of the most recent zoning permit for the approved homes. This would mean that should the applicant fail to pull a zoning permit for the approved homes for 18 months, even if all 155 homes were not built, the applicant would need to remove the construction staging area. Should the applicant later wish to use the construction staging area for construction in the C1-LR or IC zoning districts, or there be an unanticipated but finite delay, they may apply for approval to do so at that time. #SD-22-10 40 40 of 48 (2) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. The applicants proposed rehabilitation plan has already been discussed. (3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed. The applicant is requesting to be permitted to work 7AM to 7PM Monday to Friday with no weekend hours for blasting or crushing. They request standard construction be allowed on weekends from 8AM to 5PM. The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits construction noise between 9PM and 7AM. The Board accepts the applicant’s proposal for work to occur between 7AM and 7PM but amends it to exclude federal holidays from blasting and crushing operations. (4) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. The applicant is proposing a $50,000 surety for site restoration. They argue that the crushed rock has it’s own value and could be used should additional funds be needed to restore the site. The Director of Public Works advised that this is an acceptable amount. The Board finds the applicant must provide this surety prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the rock extraction area. Appendix A Performance Standards These are written as performance standards for operations, and construction by its nature exceeds the performance standards, but they remain a useful guidepost. A.2(a) No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernable without the aid of instrument at or beyond the lot lines, nor shall any vibration produced exceed 0.002g peak at up to 60 cps frequency, measured at or beyond the lot lines using either seismic or electronic vibration measuring equipment. The proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits. The Board at preliminary plat determined this standard is not directly applicable because it was written for permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board reserved the right to include conditions at final plat or when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for which the numeric standards in this criterion may be exceeded. The Board finds the above analysis of blasting operations to adequately address this criterion. A.3 Noise (a) The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises and shall be deemed detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of the City of South Burlington. (vi) Noise in general. Any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume, frequency or beat and is not muffled or otherwise controlled. (b)(i) The creation of, permitting or operation of any of the above sets, instruments, devices or vehicles causing said noise in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet (50’) from the building, structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of a nuisance and a violation of these Regulations. #SD-22-10 41 41 of 48 (c)(iii) Temporary actions benefiting the public, including but not limited to roadway construction, sewer and water line construction, and special public events, are specifically exempt from the provisions of these Regulations upon approval of such an exemption by the City Manager. The Board at preliminary plat determined these criteria are not directly applicable because they were written for permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board reserved the right to include conditions at final plat or when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for which the numeric standards in this criterion may be exceeded. The Board finds the above analysis of noise to adequately address this criterion. G) ENERGY All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. DECISION Motion by Dawn Philibert, seconded by Mark Behr, to approve Final Plat Application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Prior to recording the mylar, the plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. Remove the homes on O’Brien Farm Road extension. b. Modify the description and schedule in the phasing plan to reflect the changes indicated by the Board. c. Modify Phase 11 to connect to O’Brien Farm Road extension by removing a portion of Phase 12 and adding it to Phase 11. d. Bend the end of the proposed south end of the segment of recreation path on Kimball Ave to the roadway to facilitate future City construction of “quick build” alternatives identified in the feasibility study. e. Provide a temporary gravel area suitable for parking of at least four cars in the C1-LR district adjacent to the dog park, as overflow from the dog park will likely occur in the C1-LR once it is constructed. f. Extend Barn Road and associated infrastructure to the property line. g. Revise the Mixed Use Design Guide i. remove the statement that underground parking not be considered a story. ii. have a maximum of 4-stories. iii. the applicant’s statement that “The Project building and parking frontage deviates by no more the 25% from the conceptual distances provided on any given side/street frontage at #SD-22-10 42 42 of 48 Exhibit 016.1.” shall be modified to state “building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more than 25% of the conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01.” iv. The applicant has proposed 2 surface spaces maximum for residential units, with parking for commercial uses “as required by use.” The Board finds the applicant shall modify this standard for commercial uses to be “as required by Land Development Regulations.” h. Within the dog park wooded area to remain, indicate trees above 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be retained, and limbs below 8-ft from the ground shall be removed. i. On Lot 124 between the residential area and the I/C zoning district, indicate limits of tree clearing on the erosion prevention and sediment control plans. j. Address comments of the Director of Public Works pertaining to open space, roads and easements. k. Address comments 3, 4, and 7 of the City Stormwater Section. l. Address stormwater comments 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Director of Public Works, subject to their review and approval. m. Address the comments of the South Burlington Water Director, subject to their review and approval. n. Address the comments of the Deputy Director of Capital Projects. o. Add permeable pavers for overflow parking for the homes backing on Eastview Lane to the legend for the sheets on which they are shown. p. Provide mulch beneath the exercise stations on the circuit training trail. q. Provide a concrete walk to the dog park instead of a partially concrete and partially gravel path. r. Eastview Lane shall be signed “NO DELIVERY TRUCKS”, or similar wording compliant with MUTCD standards. s. No parking signage shall be installed on both sides of the streets with appropriate signage indicating parking to be allowed where marked. There shall be at least 4 signs facing each direction on Mabel Way, 3 on Leo Lane, and at least one on each of the remaining 20-ft wide streets. t. Mountable curbs shall be indicated on corners as requested by Fire Department. u. A 10-ft clear zone shall be established free of all vertical obstructions on each corner v. Annotate the clear zone around the fitness trail, outlined by a dashed line on either side with a different shading indicated inside the dashed lines on the landscape plans. w. Call out surface materials for pedestrian surfaces on the plans on the civil drawings. x. Remove or modify the proposed home types with a height of 26.75 feet as measured from finish floor elevation to the mid point of the roof to be no greater than 25.33 ft y. Provide an access easement to the benefit of Lot 55 crossing Lot 53. 4. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plans. 5. The following waivers of Land Development Regulation standards are granted #SD-22-10 43 43 of 48 a. The modified “design guide,” consisting of a set of dimensional standards, shall apply to future development of the sixteen (16) lots not currently proposed for development within the C1-LR zoning district, provided development remains consistent with the following nine characteristics. i. The Project provides a central pedestrian‐oriented streetscape to foster community and create a sense of place within the C1‐LR development area. Design elements to be of a similar aesthetic as outlined at Exhibit 015. ii. The Project features a central design element (plaza) as a gathering space, designed in the spirit of images provided at Exhibit 015. iii. The Project focuses services, retail and commercial development on the northern block, and residential, senior housing and hospitality development on the southern blocks in large part, with limited exceptions. iv. The Project provides a residential transition between the R1 and C1‐LR lands that creates a desirable transition for the Eastview neighborhood. v. The Project site layout, landscaping, and building architecture provide an urban, pedestrian‐oriented design aesthetic in accordance with character imagery submitted at Exhibit 015 and Exhibit 016. vi. Streetscape elements include a variety of different materials, brick, colored concrete, asphalt paving, granite curbing, designed to create a sense of place with examples illustrated at Exhibit 015 and 016. vii. The Project will create landscape and hardscape connections to Kennedy Drive, fostering a pedestrian connection with the existing neighborhoods to the north and west. viii. Project parking adjacent to Kennedy Drive will be heavily screened with dense plantings. ix. The Project building setback deviates by no more than 25% of the conceptual distance shown on Exhibit 016.01. Parking frontage increases by no more than 25% of the conceptual frontage shown on Exhibit 016.01. Setbacks on the lots within the C1-LR zoning district shall be permitted to be 0-12 ft provided the applicant provides a very high-quality street presence for the proposed buildings b. shared parking shall be allowed on an adjacent lot when no other development is proposed on that lot under the following circumstances: i. Parking must be to the sides and rear of existing or proposed buildings. ii. Parking without a building shall be allowed for three (3) years without a development proposal, otherwise the applicant shall be required to install buffering. A buffering plan shall be submitted at the time of application for parking on a lot not otherwise proposed to be developed, and sureties for the proposed buffer shall be provided in accordance with Section 15.15 at the time of zoning permit issuance for construction of the parking. c. As through-lots, parking may be to the front of three-family buildings d. front setbacks for the proposed homes shall be 10-ft, with open porches or decks less than 12-ft in depth allowed to encroach into the front setback up to 5-ft. Side and rear setbacks may be 5- ft. For street-facing garages, there must be exactly or more than 20 ft between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car without overhanging the traveled way, or the distance must be less than one car length between the face of the garage and the street (ie a car could not park in the driveway without being in the street). The Board further approves a front setback of 5-ft for the following lots: #SD-22-10 44 44 of 48 20-3 20-4 20-6 20-21 20-23 20-24 20-26 e. building heights on commercial lots may be more than one story higher than adjacent residential buildings, with the condition that the approved Mixed Use Design Guide will be followed for development of the applicable lots. f. maximum heights of homes 31-13 through 31-26 shall be as indicated on exhibit 220 g. adding or replacing porch roofs and creating screen porches does not require PUD amendment. 6. The preliminarily granted waiver to allow required screening between residential and commercial lots to be located on either the residential or commercial lots is rescinded; no waiver is necessary as this is permitted by right. 7. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans as amended must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the mylar. 8. The final plat plans and easement plans (Sheets PL-1, PL-2, E-1, and E-2) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the plans, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 9. The plat must be recorded prior to issuance of the first zoning permit. 10. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months from the date of this decision or this approval expires and is null and void. The applicant may submit a request for an extension to obtain a zoning permit under the terms outlined in Section 17.04 of the LDR’s, but the request must be submitted prior to the expiration of this approval. 11. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building or for the start of utility or roadway construction in each phase, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public roads, private easements, utilities, sewer, water, pedestrian path, etc) for that phase shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 12. All roads with the exception of the proposed alleys on Lots 18, 24, and 36, and the access between lots 41 and 42 in the I/C area are required to be offered for public dedication. 13. Prior to issuance of the first zoning permit, the applicant must provide a breakdown of landscaping cost for each phase. 14. Prior to zoning permit issuance for first building or for the start of utility or roadway construction in each phase, the applicant must post a landscaping surety for the cost of landscaping in each phase in accordance with the methodology in LDR 15.15B. Each surety must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 15. The excess landscaping expenditure may be allowed as credit towards future phases of the O’Brien Eastview project anywhere within the PUD, so long as required landscaping standards including #SD-22-10 45 45 of 48 those pertaining to screening are met. The applicant must demonstrate the requested amount of credit is available at the time of each application for which they wish to use the credit. 16. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building or for the start of utility or roadway construction for each phase, the applicant shall post a landscape surety for the street trees, which shall remain in effect for three (3) years. The surety may be broken down by phase. 17. Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the pavement. 18. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction for each phase, the applicant shall post a surety which covers the cost of said improvements plus 15% contingency. The surety may be broken down by sub-phase. 19. The applicant may obtain a separate zoning permit for site preparation for each of the approved phases of the development that require significant regrading. The surety for such site preparation shall be the cost of site restoration, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, and not the cost of full project completion of that phase. Should the applicant avail themselves of this option, they must later increase the surety value at such time as they seek zoning permit approval for construction of that phase. 20. The applicant must provide a $50,000 surety for site restoration of the rock extraction area prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the area. 21. Phase 8 and Phase 10 shall be initiated as part of the same zoning permit. 22. A continuous pedestrian connection along Old Farm Road, whether permanent or temporary, must be complete prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the 100th unit. Any crossings must occur at crosswalks. 23. The applicant must submit a State wastewater and potable water supply permit and obtain final water and wastewater allocations for each building prior to issuance of the zoning permit for each building. 24. Pre-construction grade for the homes in the R1-PRD shall be measured as the average as the two streetside corners at the point where the structure meets the proposed finish grade of the surrounding earth. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the maximum height of 28-ft at the time of application for each zoning permit. 25. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for each building containing an inclusionary unit, the applicant must demonstrate that the inclusionary unit meets the test for having four bedrooms. 26. At each interval of 50 dwelling units, the applicant shall provide an updated table of the number of bedrooms in each permitted and planned unit to demonstrate compliance with the average number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units being no fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. 27. 25% of the inclusionary units shall be constructed and made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on for each additional 25% construction. 28. For the inclusionary units, the applicant must provide the required deed restrictions for continued affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit. #SD-22-10 46 46 of 48 29. The final alignment of the recreation path at the eastern terminus on Kimball Ave shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works for consistency with the City’s current plan for connection prior to issuance of a zoning permit for its construction. 30. Utility cabinet screening must be provided when development occurs on lots containing or adjacent to approved utility cabinets. 31. The applicant shall install conduit sleeve at the intersection of Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road as shown on the provided signal plan at the time the intersection is constructed. 32. Blasting operations, including work in preparation for blasting which includes the use of power equipment or machinery or noise resulting from construction shall not begin before 7AM. Blasting and crushing work shall be prohibited on Federal Holidays. Otherwise standards in the City’s public nuisance ordinance pertaining to hours shall apply. 33. Road closures must be coordinated with the Department of Public Works, which may limit road closures to outside peak traffic hours. 34. Construction traffic shall use the haul road or approved internal roadways. 35. The applicant may not clear or otherwise disturb areas the following areas. Occasional traversing of these areas without visible resulting impacts shall be permitted. a. areas not otherwise disturbed, and specifically areas not otherwise approved for disturbance such as phases for which no zoning permit has yet been issued or areas within the PUD but outside the area approved for development b. areas to remain vegetated c. wooded areas 36. The construction staging area shall be restored no longer than eighteen months after the issuance of the most recent zoning permit for the approved homes. 37. The traffic evaluation shall be updated concurrently with the first application for development in the C1-LR or IC zoning district and again with the application occurring after each subsequent five-year interval if the commercial development varies from the uses included in this initial traffic study to allow the Board to impose revised traffic mitigation strategies if deemed necessary. Notwithstanding development, an updated traffic study shall be prepared after 10 years. 38. The following findings relate to the proposed recreational spaces. a. Lot 18 Open Space: The Board recommends the City consider accepting ownership of this parcel one year after substantial completion as long as it meets City standards. b. Lot 19 Natural Play Area: The Board recommends the City consider accepting ownership of this parcel one year after substantial completion as long as it meets City standards. c. Lot 47 Dog Park, Play Area & Open Space: The Board recommends the City consider accepting ownership of this parcel upon substantial completion of all components and as long as it meets City standards. d. Workout Loop on Lots 44, 46, 48: The Board recommends the City consider accepting an easement for the trail one year after substantial completion. e. Barn and Community Space: The applicant must provide a public access and maintenance agreement, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney, #SD-22-10 47 47 of 48 prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the phase containing the space. 39. Modifications to curb cuts shall not be allowed to be reviewed as part of site plan review for individual lot development except for individual homes curb cuts may be slightly modified to allow homes to be mirrored from what is shown on the approved plans. Additionally, there shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between Kimball Ave and O’Brien Farm Road. No additional curb cuts beyond that for I/C Road, and those needed for infrastructure maintenance, onto Kennedy Drive or Kimball Avenue shall be permitted. 40. The applicant should ensure that pervious pavers are appropriately protected during construction so that their ability to infiltrate is protected. 41. The applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 42. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 43. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 44. If discharges of sediment and nutrients are leaving the site then a new phase may not commence until the issues are corrected and the site stabilized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or his designee. 45. There shall be no use of herbicides, pesticides, and/or non-organic fertilizers within either the wetlands or the associated buffers. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney. 46. There will be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands nor can the wetland buffers be turned into lawn. Brush-hogging will be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney. 47. DPW and Planning Staff will recommend to Council that the City accept the roadway from curb-to- curb, and simultaneously close and relinquish the existing Old Farm Road, when its construction is deemed complete, provided the applicant has provided surety for full construction of the roadway. The portion of the surety representing the unconstructed portion of the roadway shall not be released until such time as it was constructed. The portion of the surety for the driveable surface shall be released at the expiration of the warranty period. 48. Record drawings shall be prepared for any infrastructure proposed for City acceptance. 49. Any change to the plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer as allowed by the Land Development Regulations. Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #SD-22-10 48 48 of 48 John Stern Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of 6 – 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __December_ 2022, by _____________________________________ Dawn Philibert, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.