HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-03 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (16) #SD-24-03
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-03_500 Old Farm Rd _OBrien Eastview_SK_2024-02-
06.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 25, 2024
Application received: December 21, 2023
500 Old Farm Road – O’Brien Eastview, LLC
Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-03
Meeting Date: February 6, 2024
Owner/Applicant
O’Brien Eastview, LLC
1855 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers
164 Main Street
Colchester, VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcels 1260-0200F, 0970-00255.c, 0970-00255
Zoning District: R1-PRD
Project Area: approximately 102 acres
Location Map
#SD-24-03
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-24-03 of O’Brien Eastview LLC to amend a previously approved plan
for a planned unit development 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. The amendment consists of
adding a 0.17 acre battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved for open space,
adding 14 units in two-family homes, replacing two large single-family homes with five detached
cottage style units, and other minor amendments, 500 Old Farm Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The property received final plat approval #SD-22-10A for 155 homes and 24 future development lots.
During the DRB review process, the applicant removed 14 units in two-family homes that were non-
compliant with the Land Development Regulations in terms of proposed height. This applicant seeks
to amend the previously approved PUD under the current Land Development Regulations, which,
through a General PUD, afford the Board the ability to grant height waivers where they were
prohibited before and also apply updated standards applicable to changes to the project and new
phases. The applicant has also incorporated several additional requests into this PUD amendment.
A summary of all proposed requests is as follows.
1. 14 homes in two-family dwellings.
2. Add battery storage grid in place of approved open space on Lot 18. See sheet C-2. This
open space was intended for the City to consider accepting ownership one year after
substantial completion.
3. Permit administrative officer review of phase completion requirements. See cover letter.
4. Replace 2 larger single family homes with five (5) cottage-scale homes accessed via an
already approved driveway. These are on Sheet C-10.
5. Minor modifications to match Act 250 approval. Specifics of this request are unclear.
The applicant also mentions in their cover memo a request to add EV charging to the parking area
near the barn in the center of the PUD. This does not require DRB review and is excluded from this
report.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner,
hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the
following comments.
As this is a Sketch Plan review, only criteria relevant for review at this stage are addressed.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
The application is subject to the current Land Development Regulations, including zoning district
and dimensional standards, General PUD standards, the general regulations of Article 3 and the
supplemental regulations of Article 13.
A) PHASING
The applicants request #3 is to permit administrative modification of the schedule for the approved
phasing plan to account for seasonal work requirements as they arise.
Staff reminds the Board of their detailed discussion as part of the review of final plat approval SD-
22-10A that the phase schedule was set to represent the latest possible time the applicant must
complete something. The Board and applicant agreed that the schedule did not mean that the
expectation was that the applicant would complete the agreed-upon trigger immediately prior to
#SD-24-03
beginning the next phase, but rather that the agreed-upon trigger would be well under way long
before the applicant was ready to begin the next phase and be complete no later than the applicant
beginning the next phase. The previously approved phase descriptions are shown below.
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 prior to 125 unit
zoning permit issuance.
Phase 8 Relocated Old Farm Road,
Stormwater and Rec Path from Old
Farm Road to Kennedy Drive
Complete "curb to curb" 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. 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’Brien 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 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 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 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.
#SD-24-03
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.
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 100th unit.
Phase
18
Kimball Ave. Rec Path Constructed simultaneous with Phase 12, or
Phase 14, whichever is first.
1. Staff considers it may be appropriate to consider specific requests to modify the approved
phasing plan, but is concerned about the open-ended request made by the applicant. Staff
recommends the Board provide clear feedback on the applicant on whether they will consider
open-ended phasing requests at the next stage of review.
B) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The portion of the PUD in which the applicant is proposing modifications is located in the Residential
1 – Planned Residential Development zoning district. The requests include modifications to locations
of certain paths.
2. Regarding request #5, Minor modifications to match Act 250 Approval, Staff recommends the
Board direct the applicant to provide a plan that highlights and describes the locations and
substance of the requested modifications prior to the next stage of review. The Board should
not have to hunt for modifications to an approved PUD.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Final plat approval #SD-22-10 was vested in regulations prior to major modifications to the Land
Development Regulations pertaining to Planned Unit Development. As a proposed amendment to
an existing Planned Unit Development without a master plan, the project is now subject to the
current LDR.
Under the current LDR, as a modification to an existing PUD, this project must be considered a
general PUD. As part of the next application to the DRB, the applicant must provide the
submission materials listed in 15.C.03B and additional submission requirements described in
15.C.07. The submission materials should treat the approved development as existing, and the
project as consisting of the proposed changes
Within a General PUD, the Board may modify applicable standards where they support the
purpose of Planned Unit Developments, which are as follows.
• Promote the most efficient and cost-effective use of land, infrastructure, facilities and
services;
#SD-24-03
• Offer flexibility, within defined parameters, to best achieve the intended purpose, design
and function of a PUD within the context of a particular site and its surroundings;
• Exclude or conserve, as determined by PUD Type, natural resources identified for protection
under Article 12;
• Complement, connect, and fully integrate new development with adjoining neighborhoods,
properties, and uses;
• Foster more traditional forms of compact, walkable, pedestrian-oriented residential
neighborhoods and mixed-use development;
• Incorporate a well-integrated variety and mix of housing types and styles that serve a range
of incomes, ages, and household sizes.
• Incorporate transit-supportive types and densities of development along existing and
planned transit routes;
• Encourage viable forms of compatible infill and redevelopment in previously developed
areas of the City served by municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater management
systems; and
• Provide opportunities for energy-efficient development and redevelopment, including solar
energy facility installations appropriate to the development context.
As described in 15.C.04D(3), standards may be modified to:
…provide the flexibility necessary to address unique site conditions or constraints; to enable
compatibility with existing or planned development in the vicinity; or to allow for exceptional and
innovative design. Note that alternative compliance does not constitute an exemption from a
PUD standard. Allowed modifications include proposed functional or design alternatives that
may be considered in place of a specific requirement under this Article, only if the intent of the
requirement is met or exceeded. In approving a request for alternative compliance, the DRB must
find that the proposed alternative:
(a) Conforms to the intent, description, and defining characteristics of the selected PUD
type(s);
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified;
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design,
and quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity
of the planned development (e.g., regarding walkability, traffic, parking, drainage).
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as necessary to
ensure compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a proposed alternative.
The Board is prohibited in 15.C.07(A)(3) from modifying the following five standards.
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized via
use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning.
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as
applicable.
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each zoning
district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of
Transferrable Development Rights.
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that
Article.
(e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized
within that Section.
#SD-24-03
The applicant is requesting a height waiver for fourteen homes in two-family units along O’Brien
Farm Road extension. The applicant has submitted two pages of narrative describing this
proposed change.
3. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to supply, in their next submission, a specific
statement of how the modification meets the above tests (a) through (d) of 15.C.04D(3).
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the specific, numeric, height waiver
being requested as measured from average pre-construction grade. Though it is not a regulatory
standard, to support the Board’s understanding of the request, Staff also recommends the Board
ask the applicant to describe the specific numeric height waiver being requested as measured
from average post-construction grade, and how that grade compares to the development both
downhill and uphill from the proposed homes.
Other applicable PUD standards include the standards of 15.C.04, applicable to all PUDs, and the
General PUD design standards of 15.C.07(I).
15.C.07(I) General PUD Design Standards
(1) Design Standards
The portions of the project proposed for modification must meet the site plan, subdivision, and
overlay district standards. In particular, the residential design standards of 13.17 apply to the
proposed cottage homes on Lot 36 (formerly a portion of Lot 37) and to the duplex homes on Lot
31. These standards include the following.
13.17C Standards
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street, civic space,
or courtyard.
(2) Building Facades. Building facades are encourage to employ a theme and variation
approach.
(3) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a
front lot line, the garage must be set back a minimum of eight feet beyond the front
façade.
(4) Garages as Percentage of Front Façade. Front-facing garages that are part of a
principal building shall not exceed 40% of the linear width of the building’s front façade.
5. The proposed homes on Lot 36 do not meet the building orientation standard. Cottage homes
of the type proposed by the applicant are generally intended to face on a central courtyard. As
a solution to the requirement that homes face on a street, civic space, or courtyard, Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to revise the design of Lot 36 to have the proposed
homes face on a central courtyard. An example of this arrangement exists for the cottage homes
approved on Lot 16.
6. The proposed homes on Lot 31 do not appear to be designed to meet either the standard
pertaining to placement of garages or percent of garage as a fraction of the front façade. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will address this issue.
Staff notes the homes proposed on both lots must meet all standards, including building façade
variation. This should be demonstrated at the next stage of review.
(5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible with
the existing or planned development context. General PUDs must comply with applicable Civic
Space and/or Site Amenity requirements in Subdivision (Section 15.A.16(C)(4)) and Site Plan
(Section 14.06(4)).
The project was approved with five open spaces. Civic space requirements did not exist for the
regulations under which the final plat was approved, but as noted above, current standards apply
to the portions of the project proposed to be modified. In a new subdivision, 10% of the buildable
project area would be required to be retained as civic space lots and programmed as one of the
#SD-24-03
types in Article 11. Lot 18 was approved as a flexible open field that was intended to be accepted
by the City.
The applicant is now proposing to modify the approved Lot 18 open space by reducing the size of
the lot from 1.15 acres to 0.98 acres and reducing the useable area from approximately 40,000 sf to
approximately 23,500 sf. This was the only relatively level open field area approved for the
project. It was approved to be approximately 5-ft below the adjoining roadway, and is now
proposed to be level with the adjoining roadway, and to be irregularly shaped. Both the Director
of Planning and Zoning and the Director of Recreation and Parks have expressed concern about
the reduction in size and useable area of the approved open space given the approved number of
units, the potential future number of units in the mixed commercial portion of the project, and the
number of units in the adjacent O’Brien Hillside development.
The reason the open space is proposed to be reduced is to accommodate a battery storage facility
to store energy generated by solar facilities on the project for use by homes within the project
area. In their narrative, the applicant states “this is the only location that the Project team
identified for the batteries that meets the site criteria and does not have a detrimental impact on
the neighborhood layout.”
Specific comments of the Director of Planning and Zoning are as follows.
I am concerned about the placement of the battery storage, and recognize the value and
importance of the battery storage in general. Specific concern:
- First, it proposes to reduce the effective size of the park area by over 20%. This is the only
park space that has been provided to the City that is relatively flat; reducing its usable area
by 20% makes it even less attractive to use for the informal activities that were envisioned
for this area, and to serve two neighborhoods – playing soccer, tossing a frisbee, flying a
kite, etc.
- Second, the proposal alters the proposed grading throughout the lot. Setting aside the
battery storage site itself, the site creates a 4’ elevation drop-off 40’ away from the western
property line, essentially making those 40’, which equates to over 11,000 s.f. in area, not
usable as part of general play area.
A. I recommend the applicant seek an alternate location overall for the battery storage. What
other sites on the property have been considered? On lot 33, there may be space either to the
north of units 34-1 and 34-2, off the end of the turnaround, or east of the barn.
B.If no other lot is viable, the battery storage area could be moved to a corner of lot 18 where it
does not impact the overall use. The battery storage could perhaps be moved south to the
edge of the lot and have the GMP access align with Mabel Way. If the location
C. Regardless of the above, the 4’ elevation drop-off should either be removed or relocated to
be at the edge of the parcel.
D. Making a portion of the site more flat may be of benefit for recreational purposes.
Recommend Recreation Director weigh in.
Specific comments of the Director of Recreation and Parks are as follows.
With the changes to this recent plan for Lot 18, I am concerned with regards to the reduction of
this area and the change in grading as that can impact what the initial plans were for that
space when it comes to the active recreational element.
7. While Staff is supportive of providing on-site battery storage, Staff would argue that the
proposed location does in fact have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood layout, and
recommends the Board direct the applicant to find another location. It may be necessary to
rearrange some of the approved homes or accesses in order to do so.
If the Board ultimately finds a modification to the approved open space is viable, the applicant has
provided an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City, which must be amended by City Council
hearing. Staff can review the statutory required timing of such a hearing. It may need to occur
#SD-24-03
prior to Board approval for the modification, and would certainly be required to occur prior to
issuance of a zoning permit.
D) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
E) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Staff notes the proposed changes to the previous approval will also be subject to the subdivision
standards of 15.A.10 through 15.A.19 and the site plan standards of 14.06 and 14.07, but considers
that additional exposition on these standards beyond what is presented above is unnecessary at
this sketch plan stage of review.
Similarly, the proposed changes will also be subject to the general provisions of Article 3 and the
supplemental regulations of Article 13, but Staff considers these standards are too detailed for this
sketch plan stage of review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner