Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-12 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (14) VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL May 17, 2024 South Burlington Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: O’Brien Eastview Planned Unit Development Final Plat Amendment South Burlington Development Review Board: O’Brien Eastview, LLC (“Applicant,”) received Final Plat Permit SD-22-10A, on January 19, 2023 (the “Permit”) to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels totaling approximately 102.5 acres, to become 155 single family, duplex and three-family dwellings, and a range of development lots (the “Project”). Since that issuance, the Applicant has received full State permits, and commenced construction on the initial phases authorized by the Permit. Currently, new homes are under construction on Leo Lane and new homeowners are moving into the neighborhood. The Applicant has recently broken ground on the next phase of development, on the eastern portion of Old Farm Road, and construction is proceeding at pace. Filing for initial permits for this development as far back as 2019, the Project has been through years of review with the Development Review Board (the “Board”) and many of the current members participated fully in that review. On February 6, 2024, the Applicant had a Sketch Plan hearing with the Board to discuss several proposed amendments. These amendments (the “Amendments” herein) include: 1. The re-submission of duplex homes on O’Brien Farm Road extension. 2. The subdivision of previously approved Lot 18 to create an additional smaller lot, which will be used for the construction of a grid-scale battery by Green Mountain Power corporation (the battery building, enclosure, etc., are not proposed at this time, only the subdivision and landscape screening, the utility will permit the structure under state law in a different process). 3. The addition of four cottage homes on Lot 36 and the required alterations to Lot 36 to fit those homes. 4. The removal of two homes from Lot 37 to facilitate the expansion of the cottage cluster on Lot 36. 5. The change of the barn parking lot surface from porous to standard pavement. 6. Minor amendments to the cottage home parking area on Lot 16 to include a parking space adjacent to a one car garage. 2 7. Clarification of project phasing requirements and exceptions for events out of owner’s control. 8. Minor modifications to the loop walking trail located on Lot 41, Lot 45, Lot 46 and Lot 48 were designed to avoid areas identified as sensitive by the State of Vermont ANR during their review at Act 250. Since no development is planned in these areas, the path shifted slightly to allow for these modifications in a few areas. The path remains in substantially identical location, with no impact to functionality. The below narrative discusses the Amendments in detail. As requested in the staff report dated January 24, 2024 (the “Report” herein), we have looked at the Amendments as a new project, and the unamended project as existing. In this way, the analysis below focuses on the amendments themselves, and how they comply with each test of the regulations. As applicable. We have broken the narrative below into sections for ease in navigation. Those sections are as follows: I. Required submission elements, 15.C.03B and 15.C.07 For All Amendments. II. Waiver Requests and Regulatory Justification.1 III. Sub-division Lot 18 Discussion and Purpose. IV. Phasing Plan Extension and Delay Protocols Requested V. Discussion of Cottage Housing Changes. Please note that enclosed is an Exhibit Table of Contents. This table of contents includes all exhibits filed for the Project with original exhibit numbers and dates in black, and amended exhibits indicated in red text. We felt that this would be an easy way of tracking what is updated by this amendment application, but we are happy to label/provide things differently if requested. I. Required Submission Elements, 15.C.03B and 15.C.07 The Report for the sketch plan hearing required that we address and provide the submission materials listed in Section 15.C.03B and additional requirements described in Section 15.C.07. Below please find each item required. a. Section 15.C.03(B)(1): All the properties involved in the PUD are under the direct control of the Applicant as required by this section. b. Section 15.C.03(B)(2) states that subdivision and master plan requirements under Sections 15.A.06 and 15.B.04 apply and must be addressed. This Project is not subject to master plan, but does propose subdivision. Given this, below is an analysis of the requirements of Section 15.A.06 i. 15.A.06(C) Application Requirements: The Applicant is filing this within 6-months of a sketch plan as required. 1 The Applicant discussed the history behind this request extensively in the sketch plan review. The details and history behind this request, and how it is connected to the original final plat permit process are germane. However, they have been left out of this permit application to avoid repetition, because they were discussed in detail at sketch plan. 3 ii. 15.A.06(C)(1): The required subdivision city permit application form is enclosed. This cover letter addresses and provided items requested by the DRB and outlined in the Staff Report dated January 25, 2024, as required. We have reviewed the submission requirements of Appendix E. Waivers requested are detailed a Section II below and are limited to small height and story waivers related to duplex homes planned on O’Brien Farm Road and the newly proposed cottages. iii. 15.A.06(C)2: We believe that the preliminary subdivision application reasonably conforms to the Sketch Plan. iv. 15.A.06(C)3: This section pertains to Master Plan and does not apply. c. Section 15.C.03(B)(2)(a): Conformance with City Comprehensive Plan: The Amendments contain three substantive changes that could be evaluated in light of the City’s newly adopted comprehensive plan. These changes include: i. The addition of 14 duplex dwelling units. ii. The addition of four cottage dwelling units. iii. The subdivision of land to create a lot where a grid scale battery can be constructed to create climate resilient clean electrical infrastructure for the City of South Burlington, fueled and charged by planned solar installations on new home roofs. The Applicant believes that the Amendments proposed herein very clearly further the goals of the City as outlined in their comprehensive plan. Eastview is a model development for clean, all-electric and resilient building. The Amendments propose more housing, during what the Comprehensive Plan has dubbed, a “Housing Crises.” These are clear goals of the comprehensive plan. In fact, climate resiliency is more than a goal, it is a Key Principle of the plan, as defined in the introduction. Eastview is putting into practice the construction of all-electric homes with solar panels on every roof, and resilient battery back-ups for all homes. This is exactly the type of development that the Comprehensive plan espouses. Given the rather obvious nature of the Amendments compliance with the plan, we will not go into significant detail here. We are happy to provide additional specific details upon request. d. Section 15.C.03(B)(2)(b): Conformance with approved master plan. This is not applicable. e. Section 15.C.03(B)(2)(c): Conformance with description, intent, and defining characteristics of the PUD type(s). As outlined in this application, the PUD type is a General PUD. The intent, description and characteristics of a General PUD are listed at Section 15.C.07(B), below we have provided an outline of how the Project conforms to relevant PUD provisions. i. Conform to the goals of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017 Please see above regarding conformance with the comprehensive plan. ii. Support and enable affordable housing development. 4 The Amendments propose the addition of 16 units to the project. This will require the construction of 1.6 affordable units under applicable inclusionary ordinances, and therefore the Project contributes directly to the creation of perpetually affordable housing.2 iii. Provide needed housing. This one is self-explanatory. The proposal very clearly provides needed housing for the community. iv. Extend or re-establish existing street, sidewalk and recreation path connections The Amendments do not materially alter previously proposed streets and paths. That said, they do enable construction of those streets, by proposing development on the roads that are approved. v. Incorporate a density of development that supports walkable residential, mixed use and transit-oriented development, compatible in design with the surrounding area. The Project is very clearly of a density that supports walkable residential and mixed-use transit-oriented development. Mixed use development is planned within the Project. The specific structures proposed in the Amendments are identical to nearly two dozen existing homes directly up the road, and the cottages proposed are identical to those already approved in the Project, therefore the design is clearly compatible with the surrounding area. vi. Foster context-sensitive transitions among and between neighborhoods, commercial areas, mixed uses areas, civic spaces and natural resource areas. The Amendments propose two significant changes to the approved Project. One change is the addition of a context-sensitive duplex home on O’Brien Farm Road extension, which has been specifically designed to effect a logical transition (see Section II below). The other change is the reconfiguring of the Daniel Drive cottage cluster, to better transition with topography and to make full use of planned infrastructure. We believe that both of these changes foster context sensitive transitions. The battery storage lot that is proposed is also proposed in a manner that creates a context sensitive transition. The lot it is proposed on will allow privacy, separation from existing and planned uses, and interconnection into the neighborhood grid. As demonstrated in visuals provided (see Exhibit Table of Contents), the facility will be hard to see, and while the facility itself is not proposed in this permit, the substantial landscaping that will surround any facility is confirmed and will be installed. 2 Please note that the 14 duplex dwellings now proposed were included in the original Project, and have already been counted in the inclusionary requirement existing in the Permit. The homes required by these duplexes are actually already under construction, even though the duplexes were removed from the plans do to the height issue encountered at our final hearing for the Project. 5 f. Section 15.C.03(B)(2)(d): A statement and description of how the proposed PUD complies with the design standards specific to the selected PUD type. PUD Design Standards, Applicable for the General PUD can be found at Section 15.C.07(I) and each is addressed below in order. i. Design Standards: There do not appear to be any specific design standards within the General PUD, and for this reason, the governing standards against which the Amendments will be judged appear to be the Site Plan standards. In review of the applicable standards, it appears as though the Amendments comply. A general high-level summary of compliance is provided below. If additional questions or information are needed, we are happy to provide it. In review of Section 14.06 the Amendments appear consistent with design standards. Building setbacks, transitions, street frontage, are consistent with the approved PUD. There continues to be a pedestrian orientation. All new utilities are underground. Parking is located in compliance with the Site Plan regulations under the exemption for single family and two-family homes. Structures are related harmoniously to themselves and to existing planned structures in the Project. The architecture form and type is consistent with past approvals, indeed, identical in some cases. The ordinance requires a specific minimum area for site amenities. The Project has provided substantial site amenities as outlined in the open space and park space plan. These Amendments do not contemplate appreciably more residential development than was already previously reviewed. The Applicant would propose that the Board may allocate square footage from proposed amenities to this specific requirement in its full satisfaction, as acres of programmed open and park space will be built in this neighborhood. ii. Streets: The Amendments do not propose any changes to approved streets. iii. Parking: Complies with regulations for one and two-family homes, as outlined above. iv. Buildings: Proposed buildings are compatible with the development context in the planning area. The Project is a 100+ acre PUD, within which the Amendments proposed represent a very minor portion. The Amendments are designed within the context of the Project, and are surrounded by the Project, therefore, they are compatible with their development context. The homes proposed are identical to existing neighboring homes built within the past ten years. Other homes proposed in the Amendments are identical to new homes now under construction in the Project. The Applicant believes that all buildings and other Amendments proposed 6 are context sensitive but is happy to address any specific questions or concerns with regard to this criterion. v. Civic Spaces and Site Amenities: The Project will construct acres of civic space and numerous public park spaces, in satisfaction of all Civic and Site amenity requirements. vi. Housing Mix: The Amendments propose two types of housing/dwelling unit types, as required by this design criterion. g. Section 15.C.03(B)(2)(e): A statement of requested waivers and proposed alternative compliance. The Amendments seek a height waiver and a waiver of maximum stories via alternative compliance for the 14 duplex homes located on O’Brien Farm Road Extension. Full details in Section II below. The Amendments seek a height waiver for the four newly proposed cottages on Lot 36, via alternative compliance as outlined in Section II below. No other waivers or alternative compliance are requested. h. Section 13.04 Landscaping Screening and Street Trees: During review of the Project, the landscape requirements were calculated including the cost of the duplex homes now proposed. If you review the final plans for the project, filed at the time of the first zoning permit for Leo Lane, you will see that site landscaping in the area of the duplexes was not removed, even though the homes were removed from the plans. Given that this entire area was previously reviewed by the Board and is unchanged, and the cost of the surrounding plantings are already included in the project landscape budget, we do not believe that any additional information is required for the proposed landscaping around the duplex homes. The proposed addition of four cottage homes, in lieu of two larger single-family homes, is expected to increase project cost by approximately $400,000. Per the regulations, the landscape budget requirement for this cost increase is $7500 for the first $250,000 and 3,000 for the remaining $150,000. This is a total additional landscape cost requirement of $10,500. As outlined at Exhibit 227, the Applicant is proposing $72,144.00 of landscaping, well in excess of the required minimum. Therefore, we believe that the landscape requirement is met. With regard to Landscaping, the Applicant would request that the Board not require a bond for the additional $62,000.00 of landscaping proposed above the minimum requirement, as the bonding for this is financially difficult and represents an obstacle to ongoing construction. Currently in Eastview, the Applicant has proposed landscaping in excess of the required minimum to the tune of $170,000. However, the Applicant is made to bond for this excess, which has an annual cost that is not insignificant. Furthermore, the bonding eats up credit otherwise available to issue bonds for necessary items, such as public infrastructure. Because the landscaping bonds must remain in place for three full years, they are exceptionally problematic in terms of capacity and ability to proceed with additional 7 phases. The applicant is proposing the landscaping shown, but need no bond for it unless it is required, which it would seem it is not, as the Project is hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond its requirement in totality. We appreciate the board’s consideration as to how this request might be accommodated. II. Waiver Request and Regulatory Justification As confirmed in our Sketch Plan hearing, the Board has the waiver authority under the regulations in effect, to permit the addition of the 3-story, street-facing duplexes and to grant height waivers. Below is a discussion of the height waivers required for both the duplex homes on O’Brien Farm Road Extension and also for the cottage homes proposed on Lot 36. a. Building Height: Per the table at Appendix C of the Zoning Regulations, the permissible height of a structure in the R1 district is 28 feet. The homes proposed on Lots 31-13 to 31- 26 have a height of 27.91 to 31.63 feet as calculated in the below table, using the regulatory definition of pre-construction grade, and not the definition contained in SD-22-10A. As noted below, the height waiver required ranges from no waiver (for the first two duplexes) to a waiver of 4.14 feet on the duplex with the most varied pre-construction grade. Once constructed, the uneven grading of the existing site is normalized. When reviewed relative to post construction grades, the height waiver ranges from .9 to 1.3 feet, maximum. This information is all summarized in the below table, as requested. The height of the newly proposed cottage homes on Lot 36 is summarized in the table below. These homes have the reverse site condition of the duplex however because these are ally load homes, the 3-story condition is technically the front of the home. For this reason the previously approved methodology for determining the preconstruction grade, in effect for the Project, is not effective for these homes. As outlined below, relative to preconstruction grade, a height waiver of 2.85-3.025 feet is proposed. It should be noted that due to the extensive site work planned, after Building # Finish Floor Elev. Height from Finish Floor to Roof Midpoint Roof Midpoint Elev. Average Pre- Construction Grade (Calculated per Regulation Definition) Average Post Construction Grade (Per DRB Request) Building Height From Preconstruction Grade Building Height From Post Construction Grade Allowed Height R1 District Dimensional Standards Height Waiver Needed Height Waiver Relative to Final Grade Stories Facing a Public Street (Waiver Needed to Allow 3 Stories) 31-13 to 31-14 380.33 33.58 413.91 386 385 27.91 28.91 28 -0.09 0.91 3 31-15 to 31-16 380.83 33.58 414.41 386.5 385.5 27.91 28.91 28 -0.09 0.91 3 31-17 to 31-18 381.33 33.58 414.91 385.5 386 29.41 28.91 28 1.41 0.91 3 31-19 to 31-20 382.33 33.58 415.91 385.95 386.875 29.96 29.035 28 1.96 1.035 3 31-21 to 31-22 383.33 33.58 416.91 384.975 387.75 31.935 29.16 28 3.935 1.16 3 31-23 to 31-24 382.83 33.58 416.41 384.275 387.125 32.135 29.285 28 4.135 1.285 3 31-25 to 31-26 382.33 33.58 415.91 384.275 387.25 31.635 28.66 28 3.635 0.66 3 8 construction is complete, the homes will be within inches of compliance with the height limit. Though a waiver is still required. b. Building Street-Facing Stories: As noted in the chart above, all of the planned duplexes have three stories facing the street, per the definition of story in the regulations, which includes the basement, partial walkout level. Given this, a waiver of the street facing stories allowed, increasing from two stories to three stories, is required. c. Building Design Standards: The Staff Report dated January 25, 2024, has cited that Section 13.17 of the regulations applies to the proposed changes on Lot 36, and Lot 31. As such, Staff has indicated that a waiver of Section 13.17(C) is required. Upon review, we have determined that the provisions of Section 13.17(C) do not appear to apply because the lots on which the proposed homes are located, are both greater than 1 acre. Section 13.17(B) clearly indicates that the residential design standards for new homes do not apply for buildings on lots that exceed one (1) acre in size. Specifically, it states at Section 13.17(B): “This section applies to all new residential or predominantly-residential buildings except…buildings on lots that exceed one (1) acre in size. [emphasis added].” It is notable that the word building is plural, which clearly shows that the regulation contemplated lots with multiple structures. As outlined above, the addition of 14 for-sale townhome dwellings on Lot 31 and four cottage dwellings on Lot 36, requires a waiver from the development review board for the dimensional standards of the zoning district, as outlined at Appendix C of the Regulations. Specifically, to allow for height that exceeds 28’ and to allow for 3 stories facing a public street. The waiver of dimensional standards is a fairly common occurrence within most of the zoning districts and the board has broad authority to waive these requirements. Specifically, the board is granted waiver authority under 15.C.07(G) to waive dimensional standards. The Board is also given authority for alternative compliance (a more stringent test for waiver) under Section 15.C.04(D)(3). At the request of Staff and the Board, the Applicant is analyzing these waivers per the requirements of alternative compliance. Specifically, alternative compliance is described as follows in the regulations: “Dimensional and design 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.” Each of these elements is addressed below, with regard to the waivers requested. Building # Finish Floor Elev. Height from Finish Floor to Roof Midpoint Roof Midpoint Elev. Average Pre- Construction Grade (Calculated per Regulation Definition) Average Post Construction Grade (Per DRB Request) Building Height From Preconstruction Grade Building Height From Post Construction Grade Allowed Height R1 District Dimensional Standards Height Waiver Needed Height Waiver Relative to Final Grade Stories Facing a Public Street (Waiver Needed to Allow 3 Stories) 36-6 425 23 448 417.1 418.75 30.9 29.25 28 2.9 1.25 2 36-7 425.6 23 448.6 417.575 420.125 31.025 28.475 28 3.025 0.475 2 36-8 426 23 449 418.1 420.625 30.9 28.375 28 2.9 0.375 2 36-9 426 23 449 418.15 420.75 30.85 28.25 28 2.85 0.25 2 9 As the Board understands, the Project site is a hillside. Given this, homes must be used to bridge significant grade differentials between adjacent streets and structures. In the duplex location, the grade slopes up significantly as the ground heads south, away from the roadway. The homes are designed to make use of this grade change and are a reverse-walkout foundation. This layout allows for the homes to act as retaining walls for uphill land, and is the most efficient way to terrace development. We believe that this grade is very much a unique site condition, and the design of the homes is specific to mitigate that condition/constraint, as required. The cottage homes are the exact inverse of the duplex situation. The driveway/access side is a story higher than the front. With regard to compatibility with existing and planned development in the vicinity, the homes proposed are identical to 22 homes located just a few hundred yards down the same street, and the cottage homes are substantially similar to those already approved in the Project. Eastview is an extension of the Hillside neighborhood, interconnected by bike, car and pedestrian infrastructure, and these identical homes exist in Hillside. In addition to narrative requirements for the issuance of a waiver under alternative compliance, Section 15.C.04(D)(3) also has four specific criteria that the alternative proposed must: i. Conforms to the intent, description and defining characteristics of the selected PUD type. As outlined in this application, the PUD type is a General PUD. The intent, description and characteristics of a General PUD are listed at Section 15.C.07(B), below we have provided an outline of how the Project conforms to relevant PUD provisions. (a) Conform to the goals of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017 The homes proposed on O’Brien Farm Road extension very clearly meet the City’s goals and objectives around housing and climate change. The Hillside East neighborhood where these homes will be built is Vermont’s first resilient, fully electric neighborhood, which includes solar power on every rooftop, and a resilient battery-backed-up microgrid. Hillside East is fossil fuel free, in direct furtherance of climate change initiatives that seek electrification. These homes contribute specifically to the creation of affordable housing. There are 16 homes that have increased the permanently affordable housing provided by this neighborhood by 1.6 as required by City Ordinance. Furthermore, this specific home type of the duplex proposed, because of its unique garage location, is the most affordable home planned/for sale in the Hillside East neighborhood. The 3-story street facing façade uses basement space for a parking garage, this efficient use of the foundation and the 3-story stacked living spaces, provide for reduced site work costs, resulting in a significant cost savings on a dollar per square foot basis for customers. The unique site condition and waiver requested, are in this way specifically furthering goals of the comprehensive plan. (b) Support and enable affordable housing development. Please see the response to this criterion listed at Section I above. (c) Provide needed housing. 10 Please see the response to this criterion listed at Section I above. (d) Extend or re-establish existing street, sidewalk and recreation path connections See comments in Section I above. (e) Incorporate a density of development that supports walkable residential, mixed use and transit oriented development, compatible in design with the surrounding area. The proposed development is very clearly of a density that supports walkable residential and mixed-use transit oriented development. As noted above, the specific structures proposed are identical to nearly two dozen existing homes directly up the road, and therefore the design is clearly compatible with the surrounding area. (f) Foster context-sensitive transitions among and between neighborhoods, commercial areas, mixed uses areas, civic spaces and natural resource areas. With regard to the proposed duplex homes, this PUD purpose/intent, is the foundation of the design. The PUD we are amending spans four different zoning districts, and in order to design a neighborhood that is cohesive, it is necessary to effect logical transitions. Because of the topography of the Project in this area, and the location of the street, the regulations require that a home be no taller than a basement, and a single level above that basement (this is because the basement needs to be a walkout at the street level, and so it is technically a story). To have a home of this small of a scale, directly across the street from 3-plus story large mixed use structures, would be stark, and would not be a good transition. These larger, taller townhomes were proposed to make this transition smooth at the request of the Board during the permitting of Eastview. The cottage cluster proposed on lot 36 is also context sensitive, in that it seeks to make better use of the existing infrastructure and alley in this area. It also seeks to align the homes with the viewshed, orienting the homes in a logical manner. Furthermore, the proposal has been amended to respond to specific contextual concerns of our neighbor, and the total number of cottages proposed has been reduced to be four, with acknowledgment that four is sensitive to the context of the area, and adjacent homes. ii. Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified. I believe that the intent of the height and story limitations as constructed, are to ensure that new development and surrounding development are compatible. The simple logic behind a zoning district is that its dimensional standards are based on existing development patterns, and are designed to ensure that new development does not drastically deviate from existing development patterns, in a way that might be shocking or adverse to existing residents. In short, the intent of the height and story limit, is to make sure development is context sensitive. As outlined above, the purpose of the wavier required, is to achieve context sensitivity both for grade, and for adjacent uses. In this way, it seems accurate to state that the waiver requested is achieving the intent of the PUD standard to be modified. 11 iii. Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and quality to that required under the standard to be modified. As outlined above rather extensively, the proposed design is intentional, to work with the grade of the site and to effect smooth transitions between zoning districts and uses. The function and design of this 3-story duplex structure is superior for this location than what would otherwise be required, which would be a raised-ranch style single level above-grade home. The cottage cluster is being expanded, making better use of existing planned infrastructure, and orienting the homes to the viewshed in a way that is logical and works with the grade. The outcome of both proposed additions is a better, more diverse neighborhood, with a range of size and home type options available, all with quality and cohesive design. iv. Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the planned development. The planned buildings are located within a 100-acre planned unit development. Their location, drainage, access, etc., were all evaluated as part of that development. There are no adverse impacts on any adjacent properties, as all the surrounding properties were master planned, designed and permitted with this exact use in mind. While the cottage homes are close to existing neighbors, the additional homes are proposed to be screened extensively. The Board may also notice that since sketch plan, we have removed an entire cottage from the plan, because in consultation with our neighbor to the south, it was determined that the home was too close, and adversely impacted our neighbors privacy. In cooperation with our neighbor the home was removed, and supplemental plantings were added. For the reasons outlined above, the Applicant believes that the Board should grant the modest height waivers, and 3-story street-facing façade waiver needed to enable these homes to be constructed. We look forward to discussing this part of the project in person at the hearing. III. Subdivision Lot 18, Discussion and Purpose. The Applicant has committed to the construction of 155 homes permitted in the Project that will not use any fossil fuel infrastructure. Instead of building new pipelines, the applicant proactively and without any mandate, is building fully electric homes that will run on clean electricity for their daily operation. All homes will be provided with roof-top solar, using the roofs created in the project to generate clean energy that supports resiliency and backup power for the homes in the face of climate change. Tesla battery back-up power will be installed in each home, ensuring that during outages residents remain with power, heat, and connectivity. Each home also includes an electric vehicle charger, as well as a smart electrical panel, which is designed to manage electrical loads for the home, ensuring that all systems function without issue for the homeowners. The homes are all enrolled-in and will receive Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready Home certifications, a stringent national certification, Energy Star certifications, as well as exceeding all local energy codes. Homes are expected to have HERs scores in the mid-20’s or lower. For reference, the RBES Stretch code requires a HERs score of 54. 12 This is the first of its kind neighborhood in Vermont. This will be the first carbon-free microgrid community in the state of Vermont and one of the first in the country. It is a model for providing much needed housing in an environmentally responsible manner. To achieve the innovative, first of its kind neighborhood, the Project partnered with Green Mountain Power. This partnership is important for several reasons, including Green Mountain Power’s expertise with battery storage as well as in the design for all-electric homes that function seamlessly for customers. The Project team coordinated for many months designing not only the homes, but also the in-ground electrical infrastructure necessary to supply the homes and create a resilient neighborhood, which is a Key Principle of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Part of being climate resilient requires layers of resiliency, and in conversations with Green Mountain Power, it is clear that to provide complete resiliency to the neighborhood and homeowners in prolonged outages, and to provide maximum benefit from the roof-top solar, a battery bank to enable a community scale microgrid needs to be located in the Project. The battery storage required is tried and tested technology and is actively deployed in existing GMP projects. This project consists of two battery banks that will be located inside a fenced enclosure that will be fully screened from view and landscaped extensively. The Project team has spent months trying to identify the appropriate location for the battery storage equipment and enclosure. There were several criteria included in analyzing locations, most importantly, proximity to the distribution mainline system equipment that will island the microgrid, as well as easy truck access, safety setbacks, and aesthetic screening. The Project plans have been amended to subdivide a small lot from Lot 18, the previously approved open space. As discussed extensively at the Sketch Plan, this is the only location that the Project team identified for the batteries that meets the site criteria and that does not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood layout. The site has clear access to Phase 3 power lines that will be installed on Old Farm Road. It is fully screened from the view of existing and proposed homes and is far enough from all the homes that there should be no impact to existing or future residents. To facilitate this battery storage installation and microgrid, the Amendments requests a change to the Project plans to create a lot where the batteries and enclosure may be built, owned, and maintained by Green Mountain Power for the benefit of the community and all its customers.3 There was much discussion at the sketch plan regarding the grading and design of the remainder of Lot 18. 3 Please note that while the Board expressed that an access easement may be preferred, we believe this path forward to be substantially more complicated and without necessity. Given this, we are suggesting a simple subdivision, which will require the review and approval of the City council to be effective, since the underlying land is already provided to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. The Applicant suggests that the Board may simply grant the subdivision, and condition a new irrevocable offer be provided that will negate the old offer of dedication, should anyone other than the City ever seek to do anything on this land. GMP and the City may then work together to draft these agreements, and can negotiate any oversite, or other terms that might also be of concern to the board, as part of that agreement. If the City does not wish to give GMP the lot, and wants an easement, they can simply keep the subdivided lot. However, should the City decide it is most expedient to do so, the option is available, and will not need to be subdivided in a subsequent application. Simply put, once the land is subdivided, the City Council and City Attorney can decide a path forward, easement, release of lot to GMP, etc. preserving their flexibility. 13 Much of the Board conversation at Sketch actually centered around land that is not involved in the subdivision, and an interest by the City in making the remaining park land on Lot 18 more usable. To this end, the Project plans have been updated to include the specific feedback of the Director of Recreation, as well as the planning Staff. We have full agreement that the amended plans represent a great and sufficient park space opportunity, and the Applicant will make the grading changes noted in the plans immediately upon the execution of a new irrevocable offer of dedication for the amended plans (or within the first 90 days of the subsequent construction season (April-October 15th, annually), after such agreement is executed. It is important to note that the battery facility itself will be permitted within a separate process via a public utility installation. The Amendments do not seek permits for this facility. The digital renderings provided are conceptual, and may change via final design from the State of Vermont. However, the landscaping and screening proposed will be required, and is to guarantee that the facility is well screened and landscaped. The amended permit must make clear that the landscaping proposed is not required, unless a battery facility is built. IV. Phasing Plan Extension and Delay Protocols Requested. In this filing the Applicant is again requesting modification to its approved phasing plan, to provide flexibility for phasing deadlines, in the event of unforeseen circumstances or delays in issuance of necessary permits. During the sketch plan hearing, the Applicant received substantial feedback from the Board with regard to our proposed phasing plan modification. Specifically, the Board indicated that they would be willing to grant some specific flexibility if a framework was provided by the Applicant. Additionally, the Board requested that we identify a path forward for timely/expedited review of issues as they arise, such that the Board itself might review issues quickly if needed, and if the administrative officer felt the issue was unclear. Further to this conversation, we provide the following: a. Administrative Officer Phasing Authority: The Applicant requests that the Administrative Officer be granted authority by the Board for the following: i. Administrative officer may provide an extension on any phase duly commenced and incomplete to allow for completion of seasonal items between May 1st and September 1st of any given year. Seasonal items may include: (a) Paving (b) Concrete curbing (c) Concrete sidewalk (d) Installation of water main (e) Topsoil, seed, mulch (f) Landscaping (g) Any item where documentation can be provided demonstrating that best practice, ordinance or manufacturer standards would prohibit installation. Work where DPW would prefer it be completed in warmer weather if the City will adopt it. ii. Administrative officer may provide an extension for any phase to account for unforeseen circumstances, or items outside of Applicant’s control such as 14 manufacturer delays, shipping strikes, etc. An example could be if a bench is backordered, or a piece of playground equipment arrives late. iii. Applicant to receive a one-time by-right extension on any phase which will be calculated to be the number of days between the filing of a zoning permit to commence a phase, and the issuance of that zoning permit. With a reduction of 21 days to account for a reasonable timeframe to review and issue a zoning permit.4 iv. Applicant to receive a by-right extension for Phase 8 to allow for at least three years to complete the phase, from the date of execution of the development agreement between the City Council and the Applicant. The language in the current phasing plan does not account for the fact that the Applicant cannot begin work on the new Old Farm Road alignment, until the City Council executes a development agreement outlining the process that will be followed for this work, the abandonment of the old roadway and adoption of the new roadway. The Applicant provided a draft of this agreement to the City in late summer of 2023. It has been about nine months since we sent the agreement and we have received no response or feedback; other than acknowledgment it is on the to do list. This agreement must be finalized to enable the financing necessary to bond for the roadway construction, and the roadway construction and ledge removal is a multi-year process. The Applicant foresees that delays in finalizing this agreement could impact construction completion, and wishes to tie the requirement to both the City and Applicant’s required milestones as the Applicant cannot complete this work without the City taking a number of required steps. b. Expedited Phase Completion Review: In conversation with staff, there appears to be a path forward where the Board could find as part of this PUD amendment that future modifications of phase completion due to unforeseen circumstances could be considered under a miscellaneous application. This application would only be made when needed, not as a hypothetical, but could be reviewed within 45 days of submission (to be confirmed by the Board), enabling some relief for unexpected circumstances where the above administrative relief was not prescribed. V. Discussion of Cottage Housing Changes: The last change to discuss is that the applicant is requesting approval to modify the housing layout surrounding the Daniel Drive cottage cluster, to contain four additional cottage homes, and to remove two proposed larger homes that were fronting/accessed from Daniel Drive. The updated 4 While this may seem an odd request, it is our direct experience that excessive delays in the issuance of a zoning permit can harm our ability to complete work. In Hillside, we filed a zoning permit to construct the Two Brothers Drive and Kennedy Drive connection on June 30th, 2022. We did not receive our zoning permit until September 15th. It took seventy five days and 2.5 months of the best construction season for this to issue. The result was that we could not complete road construction or pave the roadway before paving ended for the year. Administrative delays of this magnitude can directly impact ability to complete work and should be recognized by the Board. If we are delayed two months for a zoning permit, it is not fair our home construction should be stopped for work we would have completed in that time. 15 configuration allows for the new cottage homes to share the already planned alley infrastructure. The reason for this change is to enables the neighborhood to provide additional lower priced homes to a much-needed segment of the current housing market. The homes also orient to the slope and topography of the area better and their rear decks are now facing the eastern views. We believe the addition of these units within the existing development framework is a simple and elegant solution to deliver more housing, that is more affordable to the market. We have amended the site landscape plan in this area accordingly and added significantly more landscaping. An update to the landscaping budget to include all of the planned additions in this area, and around the proposed battery building is included at Exhibit 227. The homes proposed are the same cottage that is proposed elsewhere in the Project, previously approved, however these homes will be walkout homes on their front-porch side. We have provided an amended elevation for review at Exhibit 224. We have added windows to the lower level, a door, etc. With regard to inclusionary housing, this change does not increase the required number of inclusionary homes, as it is a net increase of 2 units, which brings the total to 157. The total was previously rounded to 16, from 155. The last change to the cottage home layout impacts both the Daniel Drive cottages, as well as the cottage cluster on Leo Lane, which is now under construction. Our previous plans, in an oversite, did not show parking adjacent to the planned garage structures. The attached updated plans show a single parking space next to each single car garage, providing two dedicated parking spaces per home. In our short time marketing these homes since the project began, we have found that a single parking space is not acceptable to our customers. While it may be more acceptable for smaller cottages, our cottage home has three bedrooms, with the possibility of a fourth bedroom in the basement space. Given the affordability crisis in the housing market, we are expecting and seeing more families interested in this smaller product type. Modern families all have two vehicles. And while it is marketable to require their third vehicle to make use of on-street parking, we are not able to market these homes successfully without two dedicated spaces. Additionally, as the market is shifting to electric vehicles, it is important that each home has spaces adjacent to their EV charging stations, otherwise owners would need to shuffle vehicles from street parking spaces to recharge them. I trust the Board can see how this is a lot to ask of a customer and is fundamentally challenging to market. Given the above, the plans have been changed to show two parking spaces, which all fit nicely in the plans. Coverage has also been updated without issue and is all accounted for at Exhibit 005. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Director of Development Enclosures