HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05D_Exhibit 001 Project Narrative 2020-08-18
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
August 18, 2020
South Burlington Development Review Board
C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: O’Brien Farm Planned Unit Development of Remaining Lands
Dear Board Members:
O’Brien Eastview, LLC (“Applicant”) is filing for Preliminary Plat for a proposed development of
approximately 100 acres of land with existing single family residences located at 100, 150 and 205 Old
Farm Road, with an overall base density of 409 dwelling units, to become a Planned Unit Development
consisting of 25.14 acres of preserved open space with active and passive resident recreational
amenities located on six (6) newly created lots, 129 single-family, duplex and multi-family for-sale
homes – including inclusionary housing units - located on nine (9) newly created residential lots, ten (10)
development lots located in the C1-LR zoning district with a base density of 280 dwelling units and
frontage on newly proposed and existing public roads, and nine (9) development lots located in the IC
zoning district with frontage on newly proposed and existing public roads and with a development
potential limited by lot coverage as no residential development uses are currently allowed. This
Preliminary Plat also includes but is not limited to the request for findings of fact and conditions of
approval to allow for expedited review of projects within the PUD, the issuance of waivers for height (in
the C1-LR) and setbacks (throughout), as well as the protection and preservation of open space via
common interest ownership, herein the “Project.”
Attached to this application is a table of contents detailing the specific sections below for ease
of reference. Also attached is an exhibit table of contents detailing exhibits and supportive information
provided, much of which is required by Appendix E of the zoning regulations. These exhibits are
provided as individual files, electronically, labeled according to the exhibit number, also with a brief
description. A fee calculated on the density currently proposed for construction and the number of lots
has been provided. We appreciate the time of the Board and Staff to review this application including
this narrative and the accompanying exhibits, which provide valuable insight into the planning and vision
for the O’Brien Farm property.
Given the acreage of the project and the three somewhat different components aligning with
underlying zoning districts, the Applicant has provided a review that mirrors the review criteria under
the Zoning Regulations. On lots where site plan is proposed, the Applicant has also provided for those
review criteria. Each review criteria to be discussed by the board is enumerated and addressed,
2
including sub-criteria. Regulations that would not apply for one reason or the other are not addressed.
Items that are not part of the review process in the Regulations are also not addressed, save those listed
at Section XII. The Applicant is hopeful that the focus of this Application can help to expedite the overall
review, albeit by requiring more up-front attention.
I. Executive Summary
The following is a detailed application on behalf of O’Brien Eastview, LLC for the development of
the remaining lands of the O’Brien Farm property located at Old Farm Road in South Burlington. As
allowed by the regulations, the proposal outlined seeks to permit and build a new residential
neighborhood of 129 homes including the required component of inclusionary affordable units, a
network of paths and open space, and significant road and infrastructure capable of sustaining future
commercial and industrial development on a series of 19 unprogrammed development lots created
adjacent to new roads and open spaces proposed.
This proposal largely is broken into three main categories (which each have distinct areas in the
project lands) for discussion and review. The R1 (also referred to as the R1 Lands, or the R1 PRD), the IC
(IC Lands, or IC Area) and the C1-LR (C1-LR Lands and C1-LR Area). These categories mirror the
underlying zoning districts of the Project for which they are named. The development plan mirrors the
uses and development allowed in those areas as recommended by staff. Each area has a different
proposal forthcoming. The R1 portion of the Project has a full proposal, for full development. The
remaining portions are creating the framework for future growth on the Project lands, with full respect
given to the now and future regulatory process and available uses.
The Applicant is proposing a full construction project within the R1 lands consisting of 129 single
family, duplex and triplex homes. This development mirrors the Hillside neighborhood. It includes park
equipment, recreation fields, and a neighborhood community facility. The Hillside neighborhood has
thus far been successful in attracting a broad spectrum of resident demographics including income,
stages of life, and family size, including a host of long time South Burlingtonians as well as new
community members. Our home designs provide a variety of price points and living styles which appeals
to a range of homebuyers. Modern, attractive, safe and energy efficient housing in the core area of the
City and the region. A model of efficient and compact mixed-use land development. A neighborhood
that has promoted solar, including prepping rooftops and prewiring as part of our base home model and
actively partnering with solar contractors during construction to make for easy and effective system
commissioning. O’Brien Brothers are again seeking to promote those objectives in this next phase and
we are excited to continue to increase the quality of efficient and resource conscious housing stock in
the City. At this point in time beyond the residential neighborhood, the Applicant proposes only
subdivision, road networks and open space.
The Project proposed is extensive and it involves a large amount of yet to be developed land,
but many projects of this size, including Hillside have been previously before this board. It is also
important to note that this parcel has long been planned for development not only by O’Brien Brothers
but has repeatedly been memorialized as a growth area for this City due to its strategic location in the
City’s core and surrounded by existing municipal, state and federal infrastructure as well as existing
development patterns.
This application creates 126 dwelling units in aggregate. It creates no commercial space, no
industrial space, and no additional residential space beyond the homes proposed. The density and
capacity of the land involved remains unchanged and any potential density of this project is the current
3
potential density, available under the zoning regulations now in effect. We are not requesting any
changes to that.
What this Application does create is certainty. It creates certainty for the Applicant that the key
findings needed for future success are secured, and certainty for the City that the core elements of the
development they value including the opportunity for extensive public parks, are secured. The other
option is to permit only those uses we now know. That would be easier, it would avoid any concerns
about what might be, but it would involve only small pieces of the land, it would lack vision, and it would
not secure any meaningful community open space. Just small pockets for small uses to preserve land
and protect against future uncertainty. This option is undesirable for a number of reasons. This is why
we are here in this process reviewing the site holistically for the collective benefits to the development,
the City and the residents and others who will occupy and use this space as it is built out over time.
With the subdivision and roads proposed, the land will become saleable, manageable and able
to be marketed and eventually developed by individual community stakeholders and business owners.
The large questions of infrastructure needs will be resolved. City roads that are now poorly designed or
anachronistic will be improved, rec paths connected, and formalized open spaces created. With the
specific standard variance requested, the overly restrictive and development prohibitive height
limitations of the zoning ordinance will be lifted, creating certainty that the investment in parks, open
space, roads and traffic infrastructure confirmed here to be the responsibility of the Applicant will be
successful. With the approved subdivision the framework for growth and development on these lands
will be established: a framework that is mutually beneficial.
We seek the Board’s review of the criteria that apply and the board and the City’s investment in
the form of the waivers needed to make this plan a reality for the Applicant and for the City. To create
the springboard for future growth on this land. At the core, this is a proposal to create a new
neighborhood, new parks, and a series of lots available for South Burlington’s future commercial and
residential development and supporting amenities and infrastructure. We believe compliance with the
requirements is thoroughly demonstrated below, and that the City will see significant benefit from this
proposal over the next 10-15 years. We believe this is the path we should take together, but to do that,
we must review what is in front of us, and trust the decisions made here, the future process and
regulations to hold both parties to account.
We appreciate greatly the diligence and dedication of all involved, and we look forward to an in-
depth discussion and review of the Project proposed.
II. Summary of Requested Approval, Authority Under the Zoning Regulations
As the board has seen in the ongoing work of our Phase I development, having both Master Plan
and PUD permits increases the complexity of permit work and reviews. We are needing to amend two
permits to make one minor change to a lot line. We need to review two separate sets of finding to
determine compliance with past decisions, and reviews of our Project have missed one set of findings or
the other in provided feedback. The added complication comes with very little benefit, as the findings of
fact outlined state: “at a master plan level the board finds,” and at the preliminary plat level the board
reviews the identical criteria with more details and can find differently, which means that the same
discussions are being had multiple times using valuable resources including board and staff time.
4
Applicant is unable to determine or differentiate between the master plan review process and
the preliminary plat review process except that it seems at the master plan level, less information than
the Applicant has provided here, is acceptable in securing broader findings. Applicant has provided
detailed information for detailed findings and is not concerned with broader review under a master
plan. For this reason, the Project is seeking review and approval as a Planned Unit Development only.
No master plan application is requested, and we do not believe that one is required. A brief outline of
reasoning related to this topic follows:
1. Master Plan or PUD Only Required
The Zoning Regulations adopted on May 12, 2003, amendments adopted July 6, 2020 (the
“Regulations”), define a planned unit development as follows:
Planned unit development (PUD). One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity,
the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or
increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw
requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the
area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as
established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The
specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be
modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed.
Planned Unit Development is required by the City of South Burlington for all projects that are
greater than 10 acres. The reason is defined in the purpose statement of Section 15:
It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to
provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in
order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill
development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision
review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations
for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South
Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens.
This unity of process, explicitly referenced above, is what our request to not also process a
master plan seeks. As the board knows, the PUD process also allows great flexibility in the review and
approval of projects, to encourage innovation and efficient use of land. Explicitly stating at Section
15.02(A)(3):
In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is
permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions
of these Regulations.
The Applicant wishes to pursue the subdivision of its land into the lots shown, the creation of
the proposed road network and street improvements, the dedication of open space, and the
construction of 128 new single family and townhome structures at the locations indicated on the Project
plans. The Master Plan would only secure the road network and open space portions as well as an
overall allocation of density. It would not provide for any constructible units or subdivision to saleable
5
lots. It would not provide any measurable benefit. A preliminary plat would then be necessary anyway
for securing the Project. The Preliminary Plat can include the same base items as the Master Plan, plus
the additional items needed in one unified process, which is the purpose of Section 15, as defined in the
Regulations, and quoted above.
Applicant also seeks certain process and review waivers as part of this PUD review. While these
are often connected to Master Plan review, Section 15.02(B) very clearly acknowledges the Board’s
authority to issue process waivers within PUD review (emphasis added):
Applications for which PUD review is required. For certain uses and in certain districts,
applications for development review must be made as a PUD pursuant to this Article. Such uses
and districts are noted below, in Table C-1, Table of Uses, and in individual district articles in
these Regulations. For all land development activities meeting these standards, PUD review shall
be required unless an application is being made pursuant to specific provisions in a PUD permit
issued by the DRB that apply to the land involved and specify another review procedure. The
Master Plan requirements of this Article may apply in addition to the standard PUD
requirements, as set forth in Section 15.07 below.
As you can see, the Regulations explicitly state that the Board may specify “another review
procedure,” within a PUD permit. Therefore, it would seem that modification of review procedures are
within the PUD process as well. Given this, there appears to be nothing that can be secured in Master
Plan, which cannot be secured in a PUD review.
Lastly, the Regulations do require Master Plan in certain instances. See Section 15.07(B).
B. Master Plan Optional or Required. As part of the PUD and/or subdivision review process,
any applicant for land development involving ten (10) or more contiguous acres may submit an
application for Master Plan except within the Transect Zones. Master plan review also shall be
required as a step in the PUD or subdivision review process in the following cases:
(1) Development of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant
(2) Development of more than ten (10) units in a five (5) year period in the R1-Lakeshore
District.
These requirements do not apply to the Project.
For all of these reasons and with the full support of the Regulations, the Applicant is not sure
why having two applications is necessary and is pursuing only Preliminary Plat findings. Process waivers
and regulatory waivers will be combined in that request. We hope that this reduces the complexity and
workload for the Board and staff in processing, reviewing and writing the decision, as well as permitting
future projects within the PUD.
If it is the case that staff or the Board determine Master Plan review is required we have
provided the completed application as well as the requisite fee with this application. The relevant
information needed is also referenced in this application, because as discussed, the review criteria
appear identical. A signed Master Plan application is attached at Exhibit 034 if needed or required.
2. Required Review for Project Components:
6
In reviewing this application for Preliminary Plat, Applicant believes it is best to clarify what level of
review applies to what portions of the Project. Effectively there are three distinct areas of land being
permitted here:
a. Residential 1 Area (R1): This area is outlined very clearly at Exhibit 003. This portion of the
Project seeks full permits for the construction and completion of 128 homes, open space, roads,
paths and amenities. In conjunction with this review Applicant has provided site plans,
architecture, landscape concepts, amenity concepts and descriptions. This area will be reviewed
under Article 12, Article 13, Article 14, and Article 15, Article 16 and Article 18. Full site plan
review is required in addition to PUD/subdivision review. Site plans for these areas are provided
with building footprints, driveways, walkways, etc. Full details are available for Board and Staff
review, and Applicant knows exactly what is being proposed to be built, which is described in
this application. Please note that while the PUD is proposed with 129 dwelling units total, that
is because the existing home at 100 Old Farm Road will remain. Only 128 new homes will be
built in addition to that home, for a total of 129 homes within the PUD.
b. Commercial 1 Limited Retail (C1-LR Area): This portion of the Project consists of the land located
in the C1-LR zoning district. In this district only a road, sidewalk network and lots are proposed.
Lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional requirements for the zoning district. This
portion of the Project will be reviewed under Article 12, Article 13, Article 15 and Article 16.
Importantly, no site plans are proposed and therefore site plan review is not required.
The Regulations define Site Plan at Section 14.02:
As used in this Article, the term site plan shall mean a rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to
specifications contained in this article. The site plan shall show the arrangement, layout, and
design of the proposed use of a single parcel or assembled parcels of land.
The arrangement, layout, and design of the use of the parcels in the C1-LR portion of the Project
is not provided and it is not required to be provided. It is therefore not an element of Board
review.
The Applicant was caught off-guard by the focus on what development of these lots could look
like at the Sketch Plan level review. Applicant’s original Sketch Plan application contained no
projection as to commercial square footage, number of buildings, etc., and projections that
were essentially maximum density calculations were only provided at staff request. Applicant
wants to reiterate that the Application does not include any construction in this area and that is
why no square footages are provided and no site plans proposed. We simply do not know what
will be proposed over the next 15 years as these lots are built and the Regulations do not
require this information to proceed with subdivision as requested. The inclusion of this
information makes more of the Project than it is. The ability to build what is allowed under the
regulations exists now, just as much as it will exist when subdivided. This application is not
creating density or available uses.
With that said, Applicant is keenly aware of what conditions must be in place to successfully
foster any development in this area, and the type of development required to facilitate the
7
investment by Applicant in roads, intersections, parks and open space shown in the Project
plans. These major items and requests by the Applicant are:
I. All lots will be developed in conformance with City zoning regulations in effect at
the time of development, thereby providing the City with a guarantee of future
development being compliant.
II. A height waiver or framework and criteria for issuance of a future waiver, allowing
buildings of four-stories over a podium parking garage is requested to apply to all
future development on Lots 17, 21-29.
III. A setback waiver of 5’ from the ROW with new project roads is requested on Lot 17,
21-29 as applicable.
IV. A setback waiver to 30’ from Kennedy and Kimball Avenue is requested.
V. The overall residential density of the C1-LR portion will be calculated as the total
PUD density, less the density realized in the R1 portion. Allowing any excess
density from the R1 portion to be built in the C1-LR. The residential density allowed
will be solidified in findings of the PUD.
While a specific plan is not provided, these findings are integral to any plan being successful
as the infrastructure being designed is meant to accommodate a level of development that
could not be sustained without these waivers. In essence, the knowable portions of the
project, road, open space, intersection improvements, recreational elements, are sufficient
to know that these waivers are needed and in agreeing to perform and to build those
elements, Applicant requests these waivers.
c. Industrial Commercial (IC) Area: This portion of the Project is located in the IC zoning district. In
this district only a road, sidewalk and lots are proposed. Lots are proposed in conformance with
dimensional standards. This portion of the Project will be reviewed under Article 12, Article 13,
Article 15 and Article 16. No site plans are proposed and therefore site plan review is not
required.
For these lots no height waiver is currently being requested, but a five-foot setback to new City
streets is being requested. It is simply accepted best practice to front buildings on the street,
and we hope the board can acknowledge this in granting a waiver so that future development
can be positioned attractively at the street. Some additional rear and side yard setbacks are
also requested in order to ensure that internal lot lines (between lots created here) do not pose
an issue to shared development features such as parking, common driveways, or common
structures shared between two different lots/uses.
The first step to any development is creating roads and lots that can be developed. The Project
land is too large an undeveloped area to be of use to any one user, and a piecemeal development that
marketed to single users and planned the land around a use, would be a detriment to the property’s
potential for the city. The property must be subdivided so that small portions with known regulations,
access, open space and infrastructure can be marketed and developed in an orderly manner. This
Project creates that subdivision. It builds roads, sidewalks, parks and open space, and it creates 19 lots
that are reasonably sized and available for development. This development could be any number of
compliant uses under the Regulations, but it is guaranteed to be a compliant use no matter what it is.
This is the system and structure in place for development, used countless times as the City has grown.
8
III. Project Summary and Overview:
With this framework in mind, the below provides a detailed project overview of the items we
know, and which are proposed for review by the Board.
1. Project Description:
The Project involves over 100 acres of land with three existing single-family homes and an
existing barn, milking parlor and silo structure. The site spans four different zoning districts in the “core
area,” of South Burlington and within the Metro district of the Chittenden County Regional Plan. Both
areas where growth is sought in furtherance of City and State goals. The Applicant has included a zoning
district map in this application which overlays the zoning districts on the planned development proposal.
This map is attached as Exhibit 003 and provides the total acreage of project lands within each zoning
district, after accounting for adjustments to zoning district lines up to 50’, as allowed within the PUD
process. Line adjustments are shown at Exhibit 003 and the areas provided account for those. The
Applicant presents this exhibit to solidify and make clear for all future applications, exactly where the
zoning boundaries are located, as adjusted, and how much land within each zoning district is in the
Project for purposes of lot coverage calculations.
The Project proposes four new City Streets outlined on the Project plans and 35 development
and open space lots with frontage on existing and proposed roads. A table provided at Exhibit 004
outlines all lots proposed, the lot areas and the zoning type or proposed use of each lot. As you will see
at Exhibit 004, the Project consists of four primary use categories. Land not accounted for below (you
will note it does not total to the same as the total involved land), is within a planned City right of way.
a. Open Space (25.14 Acres, 27.72%): These are open space areas which may be programmed
(such as a dog park) unprogrammed (such as a mowed field for recreation) or
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands.
b. Residential (22.21 Acres, 24.49%): These are lots where residential for-sale housing is being
proposed. Housing to consist of single-family homes, duplexes and triplexes.
c. C1-LR (17.59 Acres, 19.39%): These lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional
standards for the zoning district and can accommodate any of the permitted or conditional
uses outlined at Appendix C of the zoning regulations. No uses are currently proposed on
these lots. Though setback and height waiver requests are made.
d. IC (25.76 Acres, 28.40%): These lots are proposed in conformance with dimensional
standards for the IC Zoning District and can accommodate any of the permitted or
conditional uses outlined at Appendix C of the zoning regulations. No uses are currently
proposed on these lots. No height waivers or setback waivers are requested in this location.
The Project provides specific plans and elevations for all single family, duplex and triplex
structures proposed. As with the ongoing Hillside development, a number of available floor plans and
elevations are provided. Buyers will have the choice of elevation, model, and floor plan, with lot
restrictions based on topography or neighborhood area. A table at Exhibit 022 provides the elevations
available on each lot. Elevations and floor plans for all single family, duplex and triplex products are
provided at Exhibit 023, 024, and 025.
9
The Project proposes extensive exterior amenities for Project residents. These amenities
include:
e. Extensive Path and Trail Network: Trails do include staircases in some locations in order to
accommodate for grade change. Stair locations are shown on the Project plans. Paths are
shown on the Project Plans. Paths are proposed to be solid surface, not woodchip or gravel
to facilitate ease of walking, running, biking, etc. Paths are provided connecting key
infrastructure, designed to move people efficiently to destinations.
f. Rec Path Extension: The Project includes the extension of the Hillside Recreation path all the
way to Old Farm Road (in its relocated orientation) and connecting to Kennedy Drive. The
Project proposes to extend the rec path from Kennedy Drive all the way to the Potash Brook
as part of the approved C1-LR/IC lot layout and waiver requests. As the details of this path
are worked out in final civil drawings, it is the Applicant’s intent to allow for the path to be
constructed out of concrete in areas adjacent to planned larger mixed-use locations. As
outlined in a proposal before the Board for Hillside, there is a certain feeling to a paved rec
path that is not necessarily the vision for the core development area and lots proposed
here. While Applicant is happy to provide a wide pedestrian surface, Applicant will seek to
use concrete, and also to potentially include tree-wells that may reduce width slightly.
Those details can be worked through at final plat. Along Kimball Avenue, Applicant will
propose a standard paved rec path.
g. Large Park: The Project includes a 12.26-acre park space which includes an extensive
outdoor fitness loop, work out stations, a large 1.25-acre fenced dog park, and a large
playground structure inclusive of play equipment for a wide range of ages. Equipment is
depicted at visual renderings attached at Exhibit 009. This park will be an amazing
community amenity with multiple swings, slides and play structures planned. A true
destination for families in the development and a meaningful investment facilitated by the
overall plan for this Project.
h. Scenic Vista/Event Tent Location: The Project includes a dedicated scenic vista located on
the most prominent and flattest portion of the property, immediately adjacent to the
existing barn. This large flat field is the perfect location for special events, weddings, family
reunions and graduation celebrations for residents. It will be available for rent if residents
have special events, it could also be considered for community wide event rentals, and year-
round will be programmed with benches, paths, and other elements to allow residents to
enjoy the scenic views. This vista is located on Lot 32.
i. Resident Pool, Club House, Workout Facility: All owners of single family, duplex and triplex
homes within the neighborhood will have a membership to the Club House included in their
association dues. This will allow full access to the pool and club facility. Architectural plans
for this facility are attached at Exhibit 010. Current conceptual proposals include a splash
pad or zero entry children’s pool as well as a larger lap-style pool. The proposed club
features large windows to capture scenic views of the Green Mountains. This building is
located on Lot 32. This space will also be available for reservation and special events to
neighborhood owners.
10
j. Community Garden: A large community garden is provided on Lot 32. This garden features
easy access from Old Farm Road and parking on site in a pervious and environmentally
friendly parking area. Residents from all over the site will be able to conveniently walk or
drive to the garden and connect with their environment and the agricultural heritage of the
property. Conceptual plans to relocate the barn silo as a landmark at this garden are still in
development. This garden will be a community center that is managed by the association
for the benefit of all owners.
k. Open Space Recreation Field: Lot 18 of the Project consists of 1.17 acres of unprogrammed
open space. The perfect area to throw a football, set up a seasonal ice-skating rink, or put
up a soccer net. Other available uses could be tennis or pickleball courts should remaining
coverage be available at the conclusion of development. This site is left unprogrammed
such that it can adapt to resident requests over time.
l. Open Space and Picnic Area: Lot 19 contains 1.5 acres of open space located adjacent to the
higher density C1-LR and R12 development areas. This open space will be the perfect place
for residents of those larger buildings to relax and read a book, or get some fresh air and
play catch or frisbee. Convenient and adjacent to their homes.
In total, these amenities represent nearly 28% of the land developed by this project. The Applicant has
proposed an extensive and well-planned series of open spaces. Integrated into the development and
interconnected via easements, paths, and sidewalks.
The Project proposes to connect to existing sewer, water, gas, electric and telephone/fiberoptic
infrastructure located at the property. All utilities will be underground, including the relocation of
existing overhead power where feasible.
The Project proposes a standard subdivision of land for the IC and C1-LR areas of the site. The
Applicant believes that the lots and layout provided are compliant with the requirements of the
regulations for subdivision. The applicant has provided an aerial image laying out the roads and
structures proposed. Attached as Exhibit 005.
With regard to traffic, the Project has prepared an impact analysis which is attached at Exhibit
014. This impact analysis provides for potential traffic impacts for uses that could exist throughout the
lots now proposed. We believe we have overstated the trip demand potential, and proven that safe
vehicular access is readily available with improvements that the Applicant will make. The intention of
this permit is to solidify a range of improvements and the requisite trip counts associated with those
improvements, to provide security for trip end allocation to the lots included herein.
The Applicant is requesting a height waiver and setback waivers be issued for the C1-LR lots in
this PUD. This waiver is necessary to ensure that future project approvals can be secured to warrant the
investment in roads, parks and open space for the community.
This subdivision is identical to other areas of the City where lots are created without all
development details being provided. Technology Park, Tilley Drive, Meadowlands Business Park, are all
examples of similar developments subdivided before specific users were known. All were issued permits
for roads and lots. Previous discussions have focused greatly on layouts for these areas. While we
appreciate wanting to get it right, the reality is this Project is likely to develop over a period of 10-20
11
years. We do not know what uses or regulations will come to pass in that time and we cannot begin to
predict what might be built.
Our focus is to create a framework where opportunity exists for good development in keeping
with the Regulations such that the zoning regulations in effect are the guide and certainty for future
development. The waivers requested represent those items which simply must be allowed in any future
to warrant the investment being proposed by Applicant now. This investment includes the re-
orientation of Old Farm Road, which is not required absent the development of the C1-LR, and will not
be proposed outside the context of the subdivision provided. Large parks and opens space also would
need to be re-evaluated in order to leave maximum flexibility for future developments, including the
dog park. In general, the ability to master plan the site with the features shown is handicapped and
potentially impossible without the security of the waivers being requested, or absent a waiver, a
predictable and defined framework.
In light of the discussion above, and in keeping with the goal of certainty, the Applicant would
request of the board findings of fact and decisions that make clear what items are decided in these
permits, and what items remain to be discussed. The commitments of this Project are significant, and
require certainty for future reviews. The most important areas for certainty, are the areas where this
application provides a complete proposal: (i) traffic impacts and trip ends; (ii) Development lots and
development areas; (iii) Open Space size, layout and sufficiency for all future uses; and (iv) lot setbacks
and height allowance.
The Applicant believes that through careful decision making and analysis of the information
provided, unambiguous and definitive findings can be outlined that provide clarity and certainty for
future applications. Our request is that for each major project component, there be an unambiguous
decision that clearly provides for what is decided, and what may still need review. For those items that
the board feels it cannot decide, we would like the benefit of that understanding in the permit
conditions, such that Applicant can better understand the review process for future plans. We hope to
work with the board productively to review and discuss conditions collaboratively and to achieve more
certainty than the broad and often vague findings of the Hillside Master Plan which have provided little
clarity or direction even on key issued the Applicant thought were decided, such as sufficiency of open
space, rec path connections and roadway layout.
IV. Compliance with Article 15.
As stated at Section I, this project is required to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) by the Regulations. The standards for PUD approval in the regulations apply to both subdivision
of land, and Planned Unit Developments. The intent was the unification of the process to simplify
applications. For this reason, some PUD criteria may not entirely apply to review of subdivision only.
Some will. The Regulations require us to make that determination in a reasonable fashion.
As outlined at Section 15.04:
“While some of these regulations may apply only to the strict subdivision of land and others only
to a strict planned unit development project without land subdivision, the intent of these
regulations is to unify the process to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, any questions as to
12
the required elements of a PUD or subdivision application or the standards applicable to a
specific case, shall be interpreted based on the context of Article 15 of these regulations, and the
appropriateness and relevance of a given standard or provision of Article 15 to a PUD or
subdivision application.”
As mentioned above, this project has two main components. The first is a development of 132
new single family, duplex and triplex for sale homes, located on nine (9) newly created lots. The second
is the subdivision of land to create lots where no development proposal is currently made. Both parts of
this project are required to be reviewed under Article 15, as a PUD.
1. Section 15.10: Lot Layout:
A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance
with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and
drainage conditions.
The applicant believes that all lots shown on the plat plans attached as Exhibit 011 are compliant
with this requirement. All lots are laid out with street frontage on public roads, access to
utilities, and a logical layout that will allow for and accommodate structures built under the
existing zoning rules. Stormwater capacity has been analyzed and reserved, and infrastructure
has been accounted for. Wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas have been accounted
for. There are no visible indications as to why the lots proposed would not be developable in
compliance with the land development regulations.
B. Except within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply:
Corner lots shall have extra width to conform to setbacks on each street. No subdivision showing
any reserved strips shall be approved. A width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) shall be used as
a guideline by the Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Developments
consisting predominantly of square or roughly square lots or lot with an excessive length to
width ratio (i.e. spaghetti lots) shall not be approved.
The Project does not propose any spaghetti lots. The development also does not propose any
square lots. Lots are proposed in largely rectangular fashion with some exceptions for open
space, and for Lot 29, which is located adjacent to Kimball Avenue. However, no lot appears to
be in confrontation with this provision, as the width to length ratios seem in line, and each lot
can be programmed with compliant uses under these regulations. There are no strips reserved
or shown on the plans.
C. Within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: All subdivisions
shall contain allowable lot dimensions, block dimensions and street typologies in the applicable /
relevant Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards.
The Project is not located in the City Center FBC District and therefore this is not applicable.
2. Section 15.11: Relation to Scenic View Protection Overlay District:
The Development Review Board may approve a proposed subdivision, though development of
one or more lots in the proposed subdivision with construction of a structure would exceed the
13
limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District in these regulations ("view restrictions")
in accordance with the provisions in Article 10.
The Project is not in the Scenic View Protection Overlay District. This Criterion does not apply.
3. Section 15.12(A) Standards for Roadway, Parking and Circulation:
Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of
arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial,
collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to
make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension,
presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths,
sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board,
topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above
conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or
private roads, or driveways serving more than one dwelling unit.
The Project proposes a number of new streets. Each new street is discussed in detail below.
Please note that while some names are provided here, these are not the final names proposed,
but merely placeholders to enable a more efficient discussion.
a. Meadow Loop: The Meadow Loop is a Local Street, as defined in the Regulations. That is to
say: “A street used primarily for direct access to property and not for through traffic flow.”
This street is designed to allow access to homes located on both sides of the road, and
nothing more. The street design includes a sidewalk on the east side of the road and
curbing on both sides of the road. The sidewalk is located five feet from the curb, in
compliance with green belt standards of the Regulations. Direct connections for proposed
unit garages exist along the entirety of this street. The continuation of this street is not
logical, as the street is not a dead end and connects to an existing collector street in two
locations. The Applicant believes this street clearly meets the requirements of this section.
b. Legacy Farm Avenue: Legacy Farm Avenue is a is a Local Street, as defined in the
Regulations. That is to say: “A street used primarily for direct access to property and not for
through traffic flow.” This street is designed to allow access to homes located on both sides
of the road. The street design includes a sidewalk on the west side of the road and curbing
on both sides of the road. The sidewalk is located five feet from the curb, in compliance
with green belt standards of the Regulations. The continuation of this street is not logical in
any location, the street is not a dead end, and both ends connect to an existing collector
street. The Applicant believes that this street clearly meets the requirements of this section.
c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West: This road is a collector street, which carries traffic from
Kimball Avenue through to Hinesburg Road, Eldredge Street and Kennedy Drive. The road is
proposed to connect the existing O’Brien Farm Road to Old Farm Road, in direct furtherance
of the goals of Section 15.12(A). The road is proposed with a recreation path on the east
side and a sidewalk on the west side. Both sides of the road are curbed.
d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East: O’Brien Farm Road Extension East is the extension of the
Phase I Master Plan road network into the Phase II plan after the intersection with Old Farm
14
Road. This road again is a “local,” street as defined by the Regulations. The road has a
sidewalk on both sides. There is curb on both sides, and parallel parking planned on the
north side.
O’Brien Farm Road Extension ends in a planned cul-de-sac, at Lot 28, Lot 30, and Lot 47.
While this road does dead-end, it nevertheless meets the plain requirements of the
language of this Section and therefore no waiver is required. The road does not dead end at
an “adjoining subdivision,” or an adjoining property not yet subdivided. The road ends at a
planned destination, entirely within this subdivision, and where no logical continuation
exists or could exist to an adjacent property or subdivision. The road leads to a destination
and then ends at the destination where a parking area is provided for visitors to the
destination. The road serves as an access to only nine homes in the current configuration.
The intent of Section 15.12(A) is very clearly not to prohibit a subdivision from having a cul-
de-sac, but to prohibit a subdivision from having a cul-de-sac abutting a neighboring
undeveloped parcel where that cul-de-sac might be extended, or abutting an adjacent
public road where that cul-de-sac might be extended. Cul-de-sacs are a necessary part of
community planning, especially in areas where grade, environmental constraints such as
wetlands, and other site characteristics prohibit continuation.
Applicant is aware of the City’s request to connect this road with Legacy Farm Avenue.
Applicant has reviewed that connection and found it to be challenging to construct given
significant grade changes, as well as archeological sites that are scattered around the
planned cul-de-sac. The archeological assessment completed for this site is attached as
Exhibit 007. Applicant also questions what benefit such an extension would have. The users
of the park facility have access, a convenient and safe turn-around, and ample parking. The
nine residents on the street have garages and driveways. Visitors to Legacy Farm Road
would simply turn onto Legacy Farm Road, a few hundred feet past O’Brien Farm Extension
and have no need to go on this road. Visitors to the park will simply visit the park and then
turn around and go home. All residents of the PUD will have numerous walking paths
leading them to the Park and are unlikely to drive anyway. Indeed, driving should and is
being discouraged in this neighborhood design. We want residents walking to the Park, not
driving. The most direct path to all amenities is in most cases, a walking path.
The addition of a road connection at this location deposits significant impervious surface
into a site where only 25% coverage is allowed under the Regulations. It would result in a
decrease in planned density for the project, which is already unable to achieve its zoned
density in the R1 lands due to coverage limitations and the added requirements of
Inclusionary Zoning. It would be a steep and potentially dangerous roadway in winter. This
road connection would eliminate significant planned green space from the park area,
specifically taking space where a large playground is now proposed, and there does not
seem to be a logical place to move this playground, as stormwater treatment and
archeological sites hem it in. The roadway would also be aesthetically challenged, with
banks on the sides to compensate for grade changes, and the roadway would ultimately
serve no discernable benefit as connections to both areas are readily available.
Furthermore, this connection could arguably be in violation of Section 15.12(C) of the
15
regulations in that it would not: “be logically related to the topography so as to produce
usable lots and reasonable grades.”1
The Applicant has participated in numerous planning processes in the City of South
Burlington, it has listened to environmentalists, concerned citizens and City Council
members and the message of preserving open space, conserving natural areas, protecting
the environment and limiting impervious surface is an almost universal theme. The
Applicant has worked very hard to present a plan that respects these principles, while also
achieving the density of the land and the uses and development desired in the
comprehensive plan. The addition of roads that serve no measurable purpose except to
make vehicular travel take a few moments less time, is contrary to the consistent message
Applicant has heard from the Community. Applicant is proposing a plan that acknowledges
our society’s use and need of motor vehicles, but our intent is not to accentuate or over-
compensate for that need. Bike paths, walking trails, recreation paths, and non-circuitous
pedestrian connections are what make the foundation of this neighborhood. Not roads.
As outlined above, the Applicant believes that O’Brien Farm Road meets the plain
requirements of Section 15.12(A) and that no waiver is required for this provision. As
further outlined, the Applicant believes that a potential connection of this road is
unnecessary, unsightly and overall, of negative impact to the development plan. Applicant
also believes that the road itself may violate best planning practices, specifically
enumerated in the Regulations at Section 15.12(C).
e. Legacy Farm Extension: This road is provided to serve as access to only seven homes. It is
again a local street (as the Regulations require it to be a public street), but in reality, is more
of a driveway. Due to the very low number of units and the fact the street is a dead end, no
sidewalk is proposed, and curb is proposed on only one side. A compliant hammerhead
turnaround is provided. Sufficient room is provided for a future sidewalk, should a
connection to the south be made, at the easement provided. As stated, this road does
provide an easement connection to an adjoining undeveloped parcel, and therefore meets
the requirements of this Section.
f. Private Drive: A private drive is proposed to serve lots 35-1-3. This road is not subject to the
provision of Section 15.12A
g. Old Farm Road Relocation: The Applicant is proposing the relocation of Old Farm Road to
improve the intersection of Old Farm and Kimball Avenue. The planned extension will shift
the road east, and create a four-way intersection with the office park across Kimball Avenue.
The intersection has shifted since our Sketch Plan to create this four-way intersection in
response to feedback from the Board and the community regarding the previous location.
The rec path on O’Brien Farm Road will continue down the west side of this road connecting
to Kimball Avenue. A sidewalk is located on the eastern portion of the road This road is not
a dead end and therefore does not need to be extended in any manner under the provisions
1 Section15.12(C) of the regulations requires that streets be “logically related to the topography,” this is to ensure
“useable lots, reasonable grades and safe intersections of appropriate relation to the proposed use.” It seems
unlikely that a steep road with large banks along the side that would be unsightly and poorly related to the
development surrounding them could meet this criterion.
16
of 15.12(A). Other noteworthy project improvements include a planned right turn lane at
the south end of Old Farm Road where Hinesburg Road intersects it. Details on this turn
lane are provided in the project traffic study. The final improvement on Old Farm Road is
the proposed construction of a one-way “gateway” on Old Farm Road.
The details of this proposal are outlined in a letter attached as Exhibit 006. This gateway
proposes a landscaped dual stop sign entrance of sorts located where the existing
development on Old Farm Road meets the project. This will be a one-way lane, with a stop
sign on each side. Cars will need to stop and let the other car pass before going through.
The intention is to cause delay for those who would speed down the road as a shortcut,
while providing traffic calming and safety for residents, existing and new. We are excited
about this proposal, which we feel will offer significant benefit to the current situation.
h. IC Road 1: IC Road 1 is a collector roadway. It is proposed to be constructed between the
Tilley Drive subdivision border and Kimball Avenue. An easement to the Tilley lands is
provided on the end of the roadway. This roadway generally aligns with a road connection
shown on the City of South Burlington Official Map. The roadway proposes a sidewalk on
both sides and curb on both sides. This roadway connects to an undeveloped parcel outside
of this subdivision, in strict compliance with Section 15.12(A).
i. IC Road 1 Connection to Legacy Farm: It was raised as a concern in the Sketch Plan hearing
for this project and in conversations with Staff that the IC Road should connect to Legacy
Farm Road. There are a number of reasons why this connection is not proposed:
Grade Change: The change in grade across this site is generally prohibitive of east/west
connections. That is why none exist in the project plans. This particular connection is
showing 44 feet of grade change over only 475 feet of distance. When accounting for the
need to keep a 3% grade maximum for 100 feet near an intersection, this leaves an
approximate 11% grade for the road connection. This is too steep. It is outside the
permissible city limit, and well outside the design standards/best practice for civil
engineering. Even if the pitch was acceptable, the resulting cuts would leave adjacent lots
sitting well above the road elevation, steep driveways and difficult access would result. This
configuration could well be considered non-compliant with Section 15.12(C) which states:
“Streets shall be logically related to topography so as to produce usable lots, reasonable
grades and safe intersections.” This street would not be logically related to grade, it would
produce strange and difficult to use lots perched above the road or with large sloping front
yards, and it would produce unreasonable grades. It would be contrary to the specific goals
of the Regulations.
Incompatible Use: Even if the grade change could be overcome the resulting connection
would not serve any benefit to the neighborhood being designed. The result would simply
be that a large portion of the 1200 trips per day projected by the IC subdivision would use
this road and cut through the new neighborhood and the existing Old Farm Road
neighborhood to get to Hinesburg Road, instead of staying on Kennedy Drive. This would
result in a busy and dangerous street on Legacy Farm Road which is not conducive to the
peaceful enjoyment of residents. It would have large trucks and other delivery vehicles
potentially driving past the resident pool and open spaces, driving between single family
residential homes where kids want to play in the driveway or in the street, and would in
17
general devalue the entirety of the Project by connecting an industrial commercial office
park directly to a low density residential use.
The incongruity of these uses is such that the Zoning Regulations actually prescribe a dense
buffer to separate them. Section 13.06(C) of the regulations specifically states: “The
Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and or screening
along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that …a commercial, industrial
and multi-family use abuts a residential district.” Here we have exactly that. Yet the
suggestion is that we should propose not a hedge, but an unreasonably steep vehicular
connection, that would open up and interconnect two completely incompatible and non-
complimentary uses. Applicant would like nothing more than for the IC lands in this project
to be rezoned to allow for mixed use development and to continue the neighborhood into
this area. The City has shown no willingness to have this discussion or make this change to
the regulations. With the current zoning, the City itself has erected the barrier and
disconnect it now will not accept. There is no benefit to interconnecting an area of single-
family residences, with a large industrial park that may very well include: Construction
Equipment Sales; Manufacturing; Motor Freight Terminals; Warehouse and Distribution; or
any other completely incompatible and generally aesthetically unpleasing uses.
It is correct to conclude that the lack of a vehicular connection in this location provides a
disconnect between development areas in the Project. That is intentional and it is a direct
reflection of the zoning line that places two completely incompatible uses adjacent to each
other within one parcel, owned by the Applicant.
Green Space Wildlife Corridor Bifurcation: This roadway connection would also bifurcate
and significantly devalue the open space and recreational amenities proposed. It would
create a crossing point on an otherwise safe and car free path network. It would cause one
more worry for families out with small kids and create an unnecessary vehicular interaction
for those trying to enjoy the amenities proposed by the Project. Furthermore, it would
bifurcate what is currently proposed as a green corridor, available to birds, amphibians, and
other small animals to safely transect the project site, accessing the wetland complex and
preserved forest on the north of the parcel and lands further north across Kimball Avenue.
In recent months, the Applicant has heard many presentations by the City, its consultants
and community members about the value of green transects across project sites to allow for
the movement of animals in a safe environment. While this concept is in no way conclusive
and each particular site and instance must be evaluated, in this instance the Applicant is
able to keep a continuous green corridor that cuts across the entire project, connecting
open fields with the Project wetlands. We feel this is a nice feature and provides for safe
animal movement, be it birds, amphibians, rabbits, or racoons. It is directly in line with the
intent and discussion currently underway regarding the re-working of the Regulations, and
the Applicant would encourage the board to consider the benefits of this green connection
for wildlife, in discussions about transecting the connection with a roadway that is
antagonistic to wildlife.
Increase of Impervious: As discussed with regard to O’Brien Farm Road East, the additional
impervious surface comes with significant environmental impacts. It would pave over space
that otherwise can remain wild. It would bifurcate a green corridor that will no doubt be
18
used by wildlife. It will create more concrete and asphalt than is necessary increasing
potential for run-off to an impaired watershed and it will encourage vehicular travel and not
pedestrian activity. Those who work in the IC and live in the Project can either drive to work
and spend an extra one or two minutes in the car, or can walk to work with a direct, easy
and beautiful path connection. The Project is seeking the latter. As we continue to evolve
as a society, we hope that the vehicle can become less of the focus. Here we are creating a
neighborhood where walking is direct, easy and facilitated. Driving may be more indirect,
but that is a benefit to our environment, and we are pleased to be part of the solution.
4. Section 15.12(B) Traffic Overlay District: The Project is not in the traffic overlay district.
5. Section 15.12(C) Topography:
Topography. Streets shall be logically related to the topography so as to produce usable lots,
reasonable grades, and safe intersections in appropriate relation to the proposed use of the
land to be served by such streets. Adequate provisions shall be made in the project’s
stormwater management system to prevent flooding in the streets and erosion or other
adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
The road network for this project has been extensively reviewed and discussed over a
period of years. The Project site has extensive grade challenges and topography. Roads are
generally designed along contours, even in their grade change and consistent. Lots are
oriented to the road, are useable and logical with reasonable driveways. Road grades are all
within accepted standards, are safe and reasonable. Details regarding all of the roads and
road grades can be found at the Project plan sheets. Roadway profiles specifically are
attached at Exhibit 012. Applicant will work with the City Engineer to ensure that all
roadways are within design guidelines or are otherwise deemed acceptable.
6. Section 15.12(D) Public and Private Roadways:
In reviewing PUD, subdivision and master plan applications, the DRB shall have the authority
to require the construction of roadways to City standards and the dedication of roadways to
the City. The DRB also shall have the authority, subject to the limitations in (3) below, to
waive this requirement and to allow private streets, and/or public streets not built to full City
standards as set forth in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1.
All roadways proposed are public in line with the requirements of this Section, save the
single private driveway that serves Lots 35 1-3. This private driveway is specifically allowed
at Section 15.12(C)(3)(c): “The proposed roadway serves five (5) or fewer single family or
duplex dwellings. The single proposed private driveway serves only three dwellings, and is
nothing more than a driveway which the public has no interest or benefit to maintaining.
Section 15.12(D)(4) Connections to Adjacent Parcels:
If the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent
property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an
19
adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the roadway to the property
line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection.
As discussed above, the Project proposes only two roads that have the opportunity to
connect to adjacent parcels. IC Road 1 and Legacy Farm Road Extension. In both cases the
road is built to the property line and a ROW is provided for the City to eventually connect to
the adjacent property if needed. Dead end roads in the project do not extend to adjacent
property lines, and do not relate to any adjacent property lines.
With regard to recreation paths and the provisions of this section, it should be noted that
Applicant’s plan includes construction of a recreation path from Kennedy Drive all the way
to the border of the Project with Technology Park. The recreation path is therefore
extended by the Project in compliance with the requirements of this section.
7. Section 15.12(E): Standards for Construction of Roadways: The Project proposes to
construct all new roads, in compliance with the requirements of this Section. There may be
some small deviations from table 15-1 required. Applicant will work with the Public Works
director before Final Plat, to confirm any deviations and to provide a specific waiver request
if necessary.
8. Section 15.12(F): Entrances:
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 Project has completed an extensive traffic study which is attached to this application as
Exhibit 013. This study looks at the full range of impacts for the Project’s projected trip
generation when fully built out, including development on lots which is not currently known
or proposed. The top line conclusion of the traffic impact analysis states: “The TIA
concludes that with the above improvements and impact fees, the existing street network in
the immediate vicinity will have sufficient capacity and safety to accommodate the
additional traffic generated by the Project.”
The Project TIA is largely in complete compliance with the requirements to maintain LOS D
or better of this Section. However, the Kimball Ave/Kennedy Drive intersection does go to
LOS E in the full build out scenario. LOS E is also predicted at the intersection of Old Farm
Road and Hinesburg Road; however, LOS E currently exists at this intersection and so the
Project is not reducing capacity there.
Applicant has had extensive conversations with Staff and with planning agencies and
representatives for this region, regarding the long-term planning for vehicular infrastructure
in the Project area. The City itself recently completed one such study, which looked at this
exact area and the exact intersections discussed here. In the Study completed by the City, it
was assumed that the IC Road 1, proposed in our Project was connected to Tilley Drive and
therefore Hinesburg Road. That assumption seems to greatly reduce the demand at the
20
Kimball and Kennedy intersection. Our assumption is that by including this Tilley Drive
connector in our TIA (we had previously not assumed any improvements outside of our full
control), we can bring the LOS at Kennedy and Kimball to a LOS D or better. Applicant also
believes that by including the Tilley Drive connection we could reduce the needed
improvements on Kimball Avenue significantly, and enable a full build out of the Project
without widening at Kimball Avenue This will be incorporated into an additional review
along with any other questions or concerns raised by the Board during the review process.
In making this adjustment, it should be noted that the TIA does recognize that all of the
development on the R1 land, the C1-LR land and 50% of the proposed development on the
IC land can be completed before triggering this LOS issue. It is not an unreasonable
assumption that in 10 years when the second half of the IC development is proceeding, this
connection to Tilley might exist. Applicant must rely, to some extent on good planning and
management by the City in this arena.
Because the Project is so large and the timeframe for construction is so extended, the
Applicant does not believe it is practical or necessary to issue findings related to the full
build out of the lots proposed here. Applicant is not looking to obligate itself to making
improvements in Kimball Avenue or other existing and capacity challenged public roads for
the benefit of all landowners on that road, and expects that the City will organize and
coordinate some sort of traffic impact fees to make those needed improvements in the
coming years.
However, Applicant does wish to secure its development rights, such that neighboring users
will not create capacity issues prohibitive of the Project being developed. Applicant is
proposing here to secure approval for the Residential and 50% Commercial Build-out, as
modeled in the TIA. Applicant acknowledges that in the future, adjustments or additional
infrastructure investment may be needed to secure the second half of the commercial trips,
and is willing to review and secure that capacity at a later time, or will look to model that
increase in the context of Tilley Drive being connected, and can tie our capacity to that
construction. In the 50% IC scenario, Applicant would propose the following existing road
network improvements:
a. Relocation of Old Farm Road and Kimball Intersection: As shown on the project plans, to
create better site distances and easier access. This new intersection would be signalized
and will create a four-way intersection with the office park across the street.
b. Kimball Ave and IC Road 1: This fully signalized intersection will be constructed by Applicant
as warranted during the build-out of the development lots located on IC Road 1.
c. Kimball Avenue Turn Lanes and Widening: At new project intersections, Applicant will invest
in turn lanes and road widening as shown on the TIA plans, located at Exhibit 014.
As outlined in the TIA, no other improvements to the existing road network are required to
facilitate the R1, C1-LR and 50% of the IC developable land. Approvals for more trips, while
feasible given assumptions outlined above, will not be sought at this time. At the point the
PUD reaches its trip limit, additional improvements will be analyzed to increase capacity. All
relevant LOS will be at LOS D or above in the development scenario requested here.
21
Section 15.12(F)(4) discusses location and design requirements for Project access. Each of
which is discussed as follows:
Maximize the use of secondary streets for access and circulation
The project utilizes Old Farm Road, O’Brien Farm Road, Eldredge Street, Kimball Avenue,
Kennedy Drive, Meadow Loop Road and Legacy Farm Road for project access and
circulation. We believe this street network is extensive and safe, and adequately utilizes
secondary streets for circulation.
Align access points with existing intersections and/or curb cuts
The Project proposes to align the new Old Farm Road intersection with the existing Kimball
Avenue office park curb cut. This is the only location where a new intersection is proposed,
that could align with another curb cut, and Applicant has proposed this alignment.
Consolidate existing curb cuts within the PUD property
The Project site only has one existing curb cut on Kimball Avenue. This criterion does not
apply.
Provide for safe access to abutting properties
As discussed above the Project proposes direct and safe access to lands south of the Project
located in the vicinity of the Tilley Drive office park, via easements to extend IC Road 1 and
Legacy Farm Extension. The project does not propose roads connecting to adjacent
properties in any other locations.
Make provisions for safe access, with provisions for appropriate sight distances and
accommodations for high-accident locations
Sight distances and high-accident locations have been reviewed in the TIA provided at
Exhibit 013. The Project incorporates this analysis and proposes a safe and appropriate
street network.
Provide deceleration, acceleration and/or turn stacking lanes as appropriate to meet the
standards in (1) above.
The Project is designed with this criterion in mind and we believe sufficient stacking and
deceleration/acceleration space is provided. We will look forward to the review of the
Board and the Director of Public works and make accommodation as needed.
Provide adequate curb radii to accommodate the anticipated speeds and types of vehicles
We believe that this requirement is met. We will look forward to discussing the particulars
with the Board and the Director of Public Works and will provide full details for this at Final
Plat.
9. Section 15.12(G) Emergency Access:
22
Paved access and sufficiently safe access for emergency vehicles is provided per the
requirements of this section. We will look forward to the review of the Fire Chief and to
working with the Board to ensure any requested changes are accommodated.
10. Section 15.12(H) Standards for Internal Circulation and Parking:
This item will be discussed under site plan review, if applicable.
11. Section 15.12(I) Street Jogs:
Street Jogs. Street jogs with center line offsets of less than two hundred (200) feet shall not
be allowed, unless specifically approved by the DRB for purposes of traffic calming, upon
concurrence of the Fire Chief and City Engineer.
The Project roadways will be reviewed in detail by the director of public works. It is not
anticipated that we will have any issues complying with this section.
12. Section 15.12(J) Street End Alternatives:
The Project proposes two dead end roads. O’Brien Farm East, and Legacy Farm Avenue
Extension. Both roadways are discussed in detail above at Section 3(d-e). The reasons for
these dead-end streets are discussed there.
Section 15.12(J) proposes two different available alternatives for the turnarounds at the end
of each street. A hammerhead and a cul-de-sac. The regulations explicitly state that both
are allowed, but that the City prefers the Hammerhead style. The Project has reviewed both
available options and currently proposes one hammerhead style turnaround and one cul-de-
sac.
a. O’Brien Farm Road East: As shown on the zoning plan attached at Exhibit 003, the cul-de-sac
at the end of O’Brien Farm Road east is located entirely within the residential R1 district.
Therefore, it is allowed, per the explicit language of Section 15.12(J). This road currently
serves as access to nine single family homes and the neighborhood park, which is located at
the end of the road, along with a dedicated parking area. The Applicant believes that a cul-
de-sac is much more visually and architecturally appealing in this location than a
hammerhead. It poses an opportunity for a nice landscaping feature (in the center) and to
create a real focal point for the neighborhood at the entrance to a 12-acre open space.
Applicant believes a hammerhead in this location would be unsightly and would not allow
for an opportunity to increase landscaping and contribute to a sense of place. Applicant has
proposed a cul-de-sac with a 48’ radius in conformance with the standard of this section,
but is requesting review and a waiver if necessary, to ensure the central island can be
planted and not paved.
b. Legacy Farm Road Extension: This small street serves eight single family homes. A compliant
hammerhead turnaround is proposed at the end of this street, as that style turn-around is
easily extended to the adjacent property in the future. An easement is provided to the
property line for potential future connection.
23
13. Section 15.12(K) Street Names: Street names currently proposed are placeholders only. The
Applicant will work to get names approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with
the requirements of this Section for Final Plat.
14. Section 15.12(L) Street Signs: Applicant is happy to work with the City for the installation of
street signs. At Final Plat, applicant will provide detailed roadway plans showing sign
locations and types throughout the planned road network.
15. Section 15.12(M): Sidewalks and Recreation Paths: The Project proposes an extensive
network of sidewalks and recreation paths. Each road section and the sidewalks or paths
proposed are detailed at Section 3 above. In general, with regard to each requirement:
a. 15.12(M)(1): No Arterial Streets are proposed. Collector streets in the commercial area
include sidewalk and/or recreation paths on both sides as required. Collector Streets in the
residential area contain sidewalk on one side as required. Local streets contain sidewalk on
one side as required.
b. 15.12(M)(2): Sidewalk to curb distance is 5’ as required.
c. 15.12(M)(3): Sidewalks are laid out in a logical manner given the road configuration. If the
Board has suggestions related to shifts that will increase sun exposure, we are happy to
consider these ideas and potentially make adjustments.
d. 15.12(M)(4): The project is not in a transect zone.
e. 15.12(M)(5): This Section states that “Permanent pedestrian easements 20’ in width, may
be required through blocks six hundred feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul-
de-sacs … in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or PUD.”
Further to the goal of this criterion, which is to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the
PUD, the Applicant has provided an extensive network of paths and mid-block easements.
These path and trail connections are shown on the project plans, attached at Exhibit 015.
These trails and paths are also shown on the conceptual landscape sheets attached at
Exhibit 016 and Exhibit 017.
The applicant believes that path and trail connections provided are in keeping with the
intent of this provision and facilitate easy access to destinations within the PUD. Applicant
has been thoughtful in presenting these paths so as to minimize duplicative or unnecessary
path connections, as these connections have a significant marketability impact and are a
privacy concern to prospective homeowners. Homes where privacy cannot be achieved due
to public path easements are significantly less desirable to potential customers.
In general, easements are offered at approximately 600’ intervals with an exception along
Legacy Farm Avenue. Two path connections exist on Legacy Farm Avenue, one at the 700
station and one at the 1700 station (approximately). Roughly 1000 feet lies between these
crossing points.
24
In considering if an additional crossing is needed to travel from Legacy Farm Road to the
walking path below, Applicant was cognizant of the fact that a crossing does exist for every
home (twenty total) within this 1000-foot stretch of Legacy Farm Road at 600 feet or less
from their front door. The two homes in the middle of this stretch would walk 500’ in either
direction to their destination or would simply walk out there back yard and down to the
park path network. The home at footprint lot 31-24, which is the closest to the middle on
the west side of Legacy Farm Road is located at station 1300. Meaning it is only 400’ north
or 600 feet south to a path connection. Furthermore, any destination they are headed to
(the Park or the IC land) is in that direction anyway. A resident at Lot 35-5 or 31-24 would
see no discernable benefit from an additional crossing point. Those coming from further
away also would see no discernable benefit. There is no reason to walk to the land behind
footprint lot 35-5 or 35-6. All that lies behind there is a mid-point in a trail connecting two
destinations that are served by more direct means. For this reason, an additional
connection is not added at this location. No waiver is needed for this, as this is not a
requirement of the regulations unless the board so chooses.
16. Section 15.13(A) Utility Easements: Easements of sufficient size are provided for all utilities.
Applicant will work with the Director of Public works and applicable utility providers to
ensure this.
17. Section 15.13(B) Public Water Service: The applicant will construct public water service per
all applicable rules and guidelines so as to ensure adequate pressure. Construction will
conform with applicable water department specifications.
18. Section 15.13(C) Private Water Service: None are proposed.
19. Section 15.13(D) Public Wastewater Service: The applicant will connect to public wastewater
infrastructure. Applicant will procure all necessary State and City approvals for
construction. Sewer main types and sizes are shown in the project plans. Applicant has
provided a draft preliminary allocation for wastewater for the 132 units proposed at Exhibit
018.
20. Section 15.13(E) Utility Lines: All new utility lines will be underground as required.
21. Section 15.13(F) Stormwater Management: The Project proposes the construction of
stormwater practices sufficient to treat and comply with the requirements of the City and
the State of Vermont. Stormwater design calculations are provided as required by Appendix
E of the Regulations at Exhibit 019. Stormwater treatment practices are outlined on the
Project plans. Applicant assumes that there will be some questions and design concerns and
is looking forward to working cooperatively and proactively with the City to refine the
proposal and ensure the requirements of this section and section 12 of the regulations are
met.
22. Section 15.14 Required Public Facilities and Improvements: This section deals largely with
issues related to construction that can be addressed at a later stage of review.
25
23. Section 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit: This section can
be addressed at a later stage of review. Waiver requests related to these requirements are
raised here for preliminary review and discussion with the Board.
24. Section 15.16 Acceptance of Streets: This section can be addressed at a later stage of
review.
25. Section 15.17 Certificate of Title: This criterion applies specifically to final plat. A certificate
of title can be provided at a later stage of review.
26. Section 15.18(A)1 Sufficient Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal: The Project will make
use of City water and sewer. A draft preliminary allocation request for sewer is attached at
Exhibit 018. A draft water allocation request is attached at Exhibit 20.
27. Section 15.18(A)2 Sufficient Grading and Erosion Control: The Project will procure all
required state permits for erosion control. We will prepare requisite erosion control plans
for submission with the Final Plat application, per the requirements of the submission table
in the Regulations. No issues are presumed with full compliance to all City Erosion Control
standards.
28. Section 15.18(A)4 Wetlands, Streams and Wildlife Habitat2: The Project presented has been
analyzed by third party environmental consultant Gilman and Briggs, a respected
environmental consulting firm based in Barre, Vermont. The site was reviewed for rare and
threatened plants, animals, sensitive animal habitat, unique natural features, and wetlands.
Wetlands delineated are avoided in this plan with no impacts proposed to the wetland or
the wetland buffer including a small portion of Potash Brook and an associated wetland
which runs across a corner of the property. No rare plants or threatened plants or species
were found during the project site review.
The specific conclusions of the extensive review conducted by Gilman and Briggs are
summarized in their letter attached as Exhibit 021. The key conclusion of that letter is
stated here:
This field evaluation found no evidence of any rare or irreplaceable wildlife communities or species on the Project site, nor was there evidence of significant environmental resources other than wetlands and stream buffers which have been
flagged and will be avoided. Prudent development on this property will not have
undue adverse impacts on any significant habitats and will not involve removal of any high priority forest block mapped by the Agency of Natural Resources or those included in the recent Arrowwood Environmental mapping commissioned by the City of South Burlington.
2 Please note that the regulations contain a typo, item 15.18(3) does not exist. It is not omitted in our review, but
rather is not included in the regulations. We have addressed the criteria in order, and we have matched the
numbering in the Regulations.
26
While the review of Gilman and Briggs identified no evidence of any rare or irreplaceable
wildlife or species, or any species that might need protection, and while the Applicant
concurs with this assessment and sees no regulatory concerns with the development
proposed, the Applicant is sensitive to the feelings of those in the community who wish to
preserve wildlife connections. For this reason, the Applicant has provided two “greenway”
corridors that cut across the Project land, and which have no road connections bisecting
them. These are located between the R1 and IC portions of the project, connecting to the
wetland complex on the north with open fields to the south, and at the eastern border of
the Project along the brook again running roughly north to south. Applicant believes that
these natural corridors will encourage a healthy and diverse wildlife population to the
extent feasible in this developed area. The types of species observed will continue to
flourish, including birds, rabbits, squirrels and other observed resident species noted in the
letter at Exhibit 021.
29. Section 15.18(A)5 Compatibility with Planned Development Patters:
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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the
location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of
these Regulations.
The Project proposes development that has three major areas, R1, C1-LR and IC. Each area
reflects the underlying zoning district for the land on which the development is proposed.
Each area also reflects the style, size and scale of developments immediately adjacent. The
Project is in line with not only the uses, density and coverage allowed in the zoning districts,
but is also in line with the future land use map in the City’s comprehensive plan. A district
by district analysis is provided, discussing the specific proposals before the Board.
C1-LR Zoning District: The purpose of the C1-LR Zoning District as defined in the Regulations
is as follows:
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.
As noted above the C1-LR generally follows the Commercial 1 regulation. Those regulations
also state:
A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail
and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area.
Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including
clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they
27
do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large-lot retail
uses, warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be
permitted. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic
movements, promote mixed-use developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and
to provide a potential location for high - traffic generating commercial uses. Any uses not
expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses.
The Project proposes on the land zoned as C1-LR a mixed-use development that will
eventually contain many of the elements outlined above as the intent of these districts. It is
a mixed-use development with shared parking, it will provide for convenience and shopping
needs of residents, it is accessible to vehicles and by foot interconnected with paths and
trails.
The Project proposes commercial and larger multi-family structures in the immediate
vicinity of existing large office and commercial mixed-use properties located on the opposite
side of Kimball Avenue. The Project also includes the extension of infrastructure and
connectivity from the existing Hillside at O’Brien Farm Master Plan, which will develop large
scale apartment buildings immediately adjacent to the proposed uses here (the “clustered
residential development” envisioned). For all of these reasons we believe that the Project is
in line with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and the intent of the district. It is also a
logical continuation of the adjacent development pattern within the zoning district, as very
similar structures are proposed on the south, and built on the north of the Project area.
In terms of the planned development pattern outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the best
portrayal of the planned development pattern can be found at Map 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use map. The C1-LR portion of the Project Lands
where the Project proposes subdivision to create lots that can accommodate future higher
intensity mixed use and residential development is colored red. Red is labeled: “Medium to
Higher Intensity Mixed Use Development.” Given this, it seems the Project is proposing
exactly what is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of visual compatibility, this may be one criterion that is not applicable to
subdivision only. No construction is proposed and so no changes to the land will be created,
other than a road network. The road network is very minor in terms of scale and is certainly
in keeping with the existing pattern of roads such as Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive, and
Old Farm Road. The new roadway provided in the IC area no bigger than all of these roads
and therefore would be very much visually compatible.
IC Zoning District: The purpose of the IC Zoning District as defined in the Regulations is as
follows:
“The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and
commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready
access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district
encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will
generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies.
These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its
associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping
28
centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except
those that are allowed as conditional uses.”
While no specific proposals are put forward for the IC lands the plan does create a
framework for development of nine IC lots. These lots would be available to be developed
with any compliant uses allowed in the IC district, and with nothing else. The project will
create these saleable lots and a workable road network that will facilitate development of
the underlying land in line with the rules and uses allowed in this district. The Project
proposes to take the first step in creating a framework where land is available, and a plan is
in place that can facilitate compliant development of the IC zoned lands in the Project.
In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the IC zoned lands in the Project are colored purple on
Map 11. These nine development lots, intended for medium to high-intensity non-
residential use, are labeled: “Medium to High Intensity Non-Residential Use,” in the
comprehensive plan. The Project therefore proposes development that is in exact
furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan goals.
In terms of visual compatibility, because no development is proposed other than
construction of the road, this criterion may not apply. That said, the road proposed is very
much in keeping with the size and scale of adjacent roadways. Further, the road proposed
facilitates a connection that is referenced in the City map.
R1 PRD Zoning District:
The regulations do not provide a purpose for the R1-PRD zoning district and while this is a
subset of the R1 district, given the density increase provided by the regulations to four units
per acre, it would seem the most comparable zoning district to the R1-PRD would be the R4.
The purpose of the R4 district is as follows:
A Residential 4 District is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at moderate
densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent
to those neighborhoods. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that
are allowed as conditional uses.
The Project proposes moderate density residential development in line with what would be
expected at the density provided in the R1 PRD district, though in terms of realizing the
density allowed, the Project is 55 units below the maximum density in the R1 lands under
the regulations.
In terms of the existing development pattern, we believe that the R1 portions of the Project
are in alignment. As designed, the Project carries forward a very similar density to the
Hillside neighborhood, which is the immediate western neighbor. While the Hillside lands
are zoned R-12, through the implementation and approval of the previous Master Plan and
the consolidation of the density units on the northern commercial and multifamily sites, the
resulting density for the single family and duplex neighborhood is more akin to R4 density.
The proposed homes in this phase are of similar size and scale to the Hillside neighborhood
as shown on the architectural plans, Exhibit 023, 024, 025. Density decreases somewhat on
the western side of the road due to topography. A large open space is provided at the
29
existing Barn. We believe the traditional single-family neighborhood planned is fully aligned
with the Zoning Regulations (which expressly permit a density above what we are realizing),
as well as the existing development pattern which is slightly denser than what the Project
will realize.
In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the Project proposes medium intensity residential
housing transitioning to mixed use at the northern end in the R1 lands. These lands are
colored orange at Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan. The orange color is labeled:
“Medium Intensity Residential to Mixed Use.” Given this, the Project proposes
development explicitly in line with the stated development goals of the Comprehensive
Plan.
For this Project component we do have a visual understanding of what is proposed and we
can address the requirement of visual compatibility. The homes proposed are all shown at
Exhibit 023, 024 and 025. As the Board will see the homes are very much in keeping with
the architecture of the Hillside neighborhood, which is the most prominent existing
neighbor. These traditional home designs are very much in line with what is expected in a
residential district, and we believe will be visually compatible with other adjacent planned
uses such as the multi-family and mixed-use area, in a similar way to how the Hillside
neighborhood is able to blend successfully into the multi-family area of that Master Plan.
The style of architecture proposed is of high-quality and has thus far on the Hillside project –
which has similar designs - been well received. Applicant also has the benefit of topography
in that the homes will be situated higher than adjacent larger uses proposed. Applicant
believes that the neighborhood as planned is visually compatible with the surrounding
existing and planned uses.
30. Section 15.18(A)6 Open Space Connectivity:
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.
For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural
resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be
dedicated to the City of South Burlington.
The Project proposes a number of open spaces Lot 04, Lot 18, Lot 19, Lot 47 and Lot 48. In
total, the project proposes 25.14 acres of open space, or approximately 28% of the total
Project lands.
The open space areas are spread out throughout the Project in order to place open space
areas within a short distance of all the homes proposed. Each area proposed is
interconnected within the Project via a trail network the Applicant has provided. Larger
open space areas do abut other existing or potential open spaces. Lot 04 abuts a significant
wetland and open space complex on the far side of Kimball Avenue. Lot 18 abuts the
existing residential neighborhood on Old Farm Road and large open spaces associated with
those lots. Lot 18 is also interconnected with the existing open space and public park in
Hillside, via a walking path. Lot 19 proposes a new large open space centrally located
between the residential and commercial areas, and interconnected with Hillside via planned
open space connections. Lot 47 and Lot 48 are both greenway open spaces that travel from
the adjacent parcels (outside the project) all the way to the existing road. Specifically
30
providing for a large open space connection that runs uninterrupted across the project. The
open space on Lot 48 specifically provides for contiguous open space in the stream buffer
area. The Project includes numerous open spaces, connects them all and connects many to
adjacent lands for future expansion. The Project clearly meets this criterion.
31. Section 15.18(A)7 Fire Safety: The roads are designed to include a minimum 20’ flat
continuous surface for ease of access for fire safety. The applicant is happy to work with the
Fire Department and will make necessary adjustments as required. This criterion is met.
32. Section 15.18(A)8 Common Infrastructure: The Project connects to infrastructure in the
Hillside Development and extends it. It connects to existing Old Farm Road infrastructure.
The Project provides for a connection to Tilley Drive should that parcel be built-out, with a
road that is designated on the City’s official map. All utilities will also be
continued/designed to be extended at these points. The Project extends the rec path from
the Hillside development, it extends sidewalk and path connections from the Hillside
development. The Project connects and completes infrastructure at Kennedy Drive. Creates
pedestrian infrastructure on Old Farm Road, will add crosswalks at signalized intersections.
This Project knits together and connects the currently vacant 100 acres of land with all of
the adjacent developed and undeveloped components creating a walkable neighborhood
with shared common infrastructure and landscape. This criterion is met.
33. Section 15.18(A)9 Road Geometry: We look forward to the review of the Public Works
department, but we believe the roads as drawn can and will comply with applicable
standards.
34. Section 15.18(A)10 Comprehensive Plan: The Project is in line completely with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the alignment with the future land use
map detailed at Section 29 above, please find additional details as follows:
Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road,
Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors and other areas within the Transit service area.
The Project is located in the transit overlay district adjacent to Kennedy Drive in the
development core of South Burlington. The Project is focusing new development in this
area as directed by Objective 39.
Objective 40: Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher
intensity areas defined within this Plan.
The Project lands are shown on the Future Land Use Map, Map 11 of the Comprehensive
Plan. The northern portion of the property, where the Project proposes higher intensity
mixed-use and residential development is colored red, labeled “Medium to Higher Intensity
Mixed-Use”. The east and west portions of the plan where medium intensity residential
housing is proposed are colored orange, labeled “Medium Intensity Residential to Mixed-
Use. The portion of the Project where non-residential lots are proposed for future
development is colored purple on the plan, labeled “Medium to Higher Intensity Principally
Non-Residential”.
31
As you can see, our development plan mirrors exactly the intensity, type and location of
development outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. These areas that are outlined have
medium to high intensity. As such, prioritization of development in this area would further
Objective 40 and be in line with Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Project is located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City.
Objective 49: Allow for infill development, including parks and civic spaces that serves and
supports the character of existing small neighborhoods with a focus on replacement of small
single-family affordable homes that have been bought and demolished under the Burlington
International Airport’s Property Acquisition Plan in association with its adopted Noise
Compatibility Program.
While the Project is large, it is in fact infill development. This project is bounded by intense
development and municipal infrastructure on all sides and is an island in the City’s
developed core. The Project provides an extensive range of for-sale homes including a
number of which that will be sold as affordable. There is no question that the Project
provides a real opportunity for the City to recover a number of homes lost to the airport
program. This is in direct furtherance of Objective 49 for the Northwest Quadrant.
Under the Future Land Uses section in the Northwest Quadrant portion of the
Comprehensive Plan it states: “Remaining undeveloped areas provide an opportunity for
multiple uses, including housing at a density and design that is transit supportive.”
The Project is proposing new housing that both integrates with the adjacent uses, aligns
with the planned intensity shown on the future land use map, and which is of a density that
is transit supportive. The Applicant is willing to construct bus stops within the site that are
well located and beneficial should the bus line wish to extend service within the
neighborhood, as would be desired by the Applicant and presumably the City.
Key Planning Issues discussed in the Comprehensive Plan include:
Affordability: The plan discusses the challenges faced with affordability. The Project
proposes construction of affordable housing units in the Northwest Quadrant. It creates
lots suitable for large scale development of such affordable housing in connection with the
recently passed inclusionary ordinance. In the immediate plan, the Project proposes to
construct 9 affordable 3-bedroom ownership units. This directly furthers the goals of the
comprehensive plan for affordability. Applicant would note that the Comprehensive Plan
does not strictly limit its affordability metric to 80% of AMI. Indeed, the plan targets homes
in the 100-120% AMI range as well. This market has also been underserved and was able to
be brought into the Hillside project. Applicant is offering a range of products and pricing to
a broad swath of the market. The success of this strategy is apparent in the diversity of the
existing Hillside neighborhood, where teachers, retirees, nurses, doctors, veterans, families,
young professionals and attorneys all share a neighborhood, parks, and community. We do
not want this fact to be missed by the Board. Our neighborhood is affordable to a broad
swath of South Burlington and fosters community beyond the 80% AMI requisite homes. It
is also important to note that the Project offers step-up style homes that offer additional
housing supply enabling homeowners to sell their existing older housing stock in order to
32
purchase a new home. The result is that by adding new housing, the Project also creates
access to lower priced homes that come available. This is not a theory but a proven fact in
housing cost studies throughout the country.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: The plan discusses the challenge of extending
pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure. The Project proposes extensive new
infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians. The Applicant is committed to creating an
interconnected and bike and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. We are proposing a rec
path connection from Kennedy Drive all the way to the project border on Kimball Avenue as
requested by the Bike and Pedestrian committee. We are proposing thousands of feet of
new sidewalk, paths and trails. The entire neighborhood is interconnected with pedestrian
infrastructure, both east to west and south to north. The roads, sidewalks and paths
outlined in this application will undoubtedly create an interconnected pedestrian
environment. In addition to this, the full build out of the Project will also contribute
significantly to recreation and bike and pedestrian impact fees to further enhance this
infrastructure throughout the City.
35. Section 15.18(A)11 Stormwater: The Project stormwater system is designed and the
calculations are provided for review. At this stage, the Applicant is happy to have the
feedback of the City and the Board on any improvements that can be made, but the design
intent is compliance with this criterion
V. Compliance with Article 14: Site Plan Review
As outlined above, the only portion of the Project that must comply with Site Plan review
standards is the portion proposed for full development. This is the R1 area. The entire area is outlined
in red at Exhibit 003. The specifics of this project as pertain to the site plan review criteria are discussed
below.
1. Section 14.06(A) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City Comprehensive Plan:
See Section III(34) above.
2. Section 14.06(B) Parking: The project proposes a number of different roads, home
configurations and parking configurations. For the purpose of discussing this requirement.
We will discuss parking as it relates to each road in the project.
a. Meadow Loop: This road has frontage on Lot 16, Lot 18, Lot 19 and Lot 20. The Meadow
Loop Road contains a mix of open space, single family homes, duplex homes and triplex
homes.
The homes located on Lot 16 are all single-family homes. Given this, parking is allowed in
the front of the homes per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(ii). The parking located in the driveway of
the homes on Lot 16 is therefore permissible under the regulations.
The homes located on Lot 20 front on Old Farm Road. These duplex and triplex homes are
located on a through lot. Given this, parking is required to be located on the side with the
least traffic, per 14.06(B)(2)(d). Parking is located on the Meadow Loop side, per the
requirements of this section.
33
b. Legacy Farm Avenue: This road contains a mix of duplex single-family homes, with parking
located in the front, between the street and the buildings. Because all homes are single and
two family, this parking configuration is permissible under this Section.
c. O’Brien Farm Road Extension West: No structures or parking are proposed in this location as
part of this project.
d. O’Brien Farm Road Extension East: This road contains a mix of C1-LR lots and nine proposed
single-family homes. At this time, only nine single family homes will have parking adjacent
to this road. Parking is provided in the front of the homes as allowed under this Section.
This road terminates at a planned recreation space. The Board will note a small parking lot
planned here in the front portion of the park. This is allowed per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(v), as
the principle use of the lot is public recreation.
e. Legacy Farm Extension: This road contains only proposed single family homes, with parking
located between the home and the roadway as allowed under this subsection.
f. Private Drive: This is a private drive and therefore the rules of this subsection do not apply.
g. Old Farm Road Relocation: Several single-family homes are proposed along Old Farm Road,
with parking located in the front of the homes. This is allowed per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(ii).
The Board will note that a small parking facility is also planned at the barn. This facility is
authorized per Section 14.06(B(2)(b)(iv) and 14.06(B(2)(b)(v). The principle purpose of this
lot is recreation, there is a pool and large community event space, and a public garden on
the lot. Also, the lot contains an existing structure to be re-used, and parking at the rear of
the structure is not practicable. It would detract from the view and experience of the
planned park and event space.
h. IC Road 1: No structures are proposed and therefore parking has not been analyzed.
3. Section 14.06(C) Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
a. Common Materials and Architectural Characteristics: The specific requirement of this
section of the Regulations is as follows:
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.
Applicant has provided a number of exhibits to this application to address the materials and
architectural characteristics proposed. The residential neighborhood planned is very similar
to the Hillside neighborhood previously approved by the Board in terms of architectural
character and variety. There are a number of floor plans and elevations available. Buyers
will select from available plans and elevations, and will customize their plans and elevations
with colors, textures, or architectural elements of their choosing.
34
To clarify Applicant’s proposal, a chart is provided at Exhibit 22 that provides a unit type key.
Each unit type has a distinct code or name. Th-1, Th-2, SF-1, Daylily, Bluebell, etc. These
codes and names correspond to the architecture exhibits provided at Exhibit 23, which
provides new single-family elevations not previously used at Hillside, as well as Exhibit 24,
which provides new townhome elevations not previously used at Hillside. Exhibit 25,
provides single family architecture used at Hillside, which will also be offered in the Project.
The key at Exhibit 22 also provides an indication of in which areas of the Project, on which
footprint lots, each proposed plan can fit/will be offered.
The Applicant has designed all plans for the neighborhood to be complimentary, largely in
farmhouse and craftsman style architecture. The materials, rhythm, color, texture, form
and detailing for all of the homes are very similar, however the details vary providing
differentiation between plans. We use roof lines, porches, garage configuration, accents
such as metal roofing, board and batten, shake siding, differently across the various plan
types to achieve subtle differences that will vary streetscape.
This specific criterion is more concerned with addressing the transitions between buildings
of different architectural styles. Within the proposed site plan, there are limited areas
where this transition exists as this large site plan is a coordinated neighborhood of similar
architectural style. Each transition is discussed below:
Southern Border: To the south, there are existing single-family homes where architecture is
similar and style of use complimentary. On the southern border of the Project, the
Applicant has placed a large open space (preserving an existing treed border) on the
western side of Old Farm Road. This creates a very easy transition to the existing
neighborhood and provides a nice amenity. On the southern border east of Old Farm Road,
the Applicant has again left existing trees in place to create separation, though this
separation is not necessarily needed, as architecture is complimentary, we believe it ads
privacy and since it is existing is beneficial to leave in place. Landscape plantings will also be
used in this location as needed to supplement and ensure adequate screening.
Eastern Border: On the eastern project border, where a non-complimentary industrial use
would eventually be proposed, the Applicant has provided for a wide and continuous treed
buffer. This buffer is a proposed open space with recreation trails included. It also includes
a park, playground, and dog park. This large green space is specifically located to reduce the
transitional incongruity between the IC and the R1 uses. In addition to numerous plantings,
this area also drops off significantly in grade, such that the smaller homes will actually sit
above the larger IC buildings. This is important as it significantly reduces the impact of the
transition on the homes. The Applicant will look to use landscaping in this buffer as feasible
to create separation, but would note that due to the grade change screening from view is
likely not going to be effective. The site plans and uses for the IC area are not a secret, and
will be communicated to those moving into the R1 lands so that they are well aware of what
is allowed and planned.
Northern Border: The northern border of the proposed site plan transitions from the R1
area to the C1-LR area. As no architecture exists in the C1-LR area, it is difficult to evaluate
the transition specifically. However, the transition is necessary and is facilitated by the
35
underlying zoning regulations. Applicant had requested the ability to mix uses within the
PUD across district lines, that might have allowed for more blending of styles at the borders.
However, the coverage limitations and building size restrictions in the R1 district prevent
that sort of transition from being viable. Given this, other elements must be used to help
ease the transition and ensure that it is attractive, as prescribed by this criterion.
In many ways the transition on the northern border is no different than the transition in
Hillside currently at the northern border. You are moving from a high density residential
single family and duplex neighborhood to a more mixed-use style development of larger
buildings. We believe that the homes designed while smaller, are architecturally interesting
and modern. Their proximity to one another (close together) does give the homes a more
urban feel. We will focus transition points on landscaping, streetscaping and place making.
Using outdoor areas, larger sidewalks, and good architecture to blend the uses as we are
proposing at Hillside.
Open Space Lot 19 solidifies a nice transition for the northern border on the western side of
Old Farm Road. This park will allow for landscaping and pedestrian infrastructure that can
be very appealing. On the eastern side of Old farm Road, there is a commercial lot that
splits zoning districts. Given the limitations of the zoning in this transition, we imagine this
building will be smaller and more transitional in nature. The remaining border fronts on
O’Brien Farm Road East. This uses the street itself as a transition point, which we feel will
be very effective in changing the character of the development, especially as the ground
slopes away toward Kimball, so the taller building will appear one story shorter from the
transition line. Landscape, hardscape, street trees and lights, plazas, and urban design will
allow this to be a lively area where all sorts of living opportunities come together. We are
confident that this transition will be as successful as in Hillside, and that this criterion is
satisfied.
Western Border: The western border of the site plan proposed abuts in large part the
Hillside neighborhood. The transition is from single family homes to complimentary and
architecturally similar single-family homes. We have provided compliant setbacks in the
rear of the homes proposed, larger back yards, and will provide significant landscaping along
the border. We believe this transition is logical, attractive, and inherently complimentary as
it proposes very similar homes, of similar scale and style.
b. Proposed Structures are Related Harmoniously to Themselves: The specific requirement of
this section is as follows:
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 Project proposes to construct 128new residential dwelling units, and a residential club
and pool facility, as well as a number of roadways, sidewalks and walking paths. The specific
proposal for construction on each lot is not known at this time. Buyers will have the ability
to choose from several pre-designed plans. Each of the predesigned plans has locations
within the project where they may be built. These locations are determined based on lot
size (depth), or type of use (single family or townhome). The neighborhood has been
planned using both these types of uses in a coordinated fashion to yield the best possible
36
result, and to increase the street presence and vibrancy of the community for its residents
and for the City more broadly.
To convey an understanding of what structures are planned for what location, the Applicant
has provided to you a chart at Exhibit 022 which identifies plan names and available project
locations. These plan names correspond to the architectural exhibits provided.
In terms of customization, the Applicant intends to allow single family purchasers to choose
exterior colors and finishes. This will include items currently available at Hillside, front door
color, siding color, roofing color, window frame color, garage door style and color, front
porch decking color, variety of plantings of different type and color. This has fostered an
organic feel to the community at Hillside which we hope to replicate here.
For the purpose of this neighborhood, Applicant will be selecting 2-4 color tones that will be
used for all of the townhome product. The Board will notice that the townhome structures
are oriented toward the most prominent part of the development, the crest of Old Farm
Road, the barn and the Farmhouse. These structures are set up with parking not facing
those locations. This was intentional, to foster the feel of a large community green,
surrounded by farmhouse style homes, where only pedestrian infrastructure is evident as
residents enjoy the planned open space and mountain view. Because of the nature of the
hilltop and open space, the Applicant wants to ensure that the architecture is subtle and
that it blends in with the surroundings. The idea would be for the color palette to be subtle,
to embrace the open space at the top of the hill, but not to dominate it. The focus is meant
to be on the environment and the views. Applicant feels that bright colors for these
buildings would detract from that experience, and therefore is proposing to limit the color
palette in this location, to create the harmonious experience this criterion is seeking.
The structures themselves are all planned as one and two-story homes. They will align with
the road network proposed and will be structured as a residential neighborhood. While the
terrain varies, the road network proposes to even the areas where homes are built. This will
create consistency in road frontage elevation. The structures proposed will not be
appreciably different than all existing structures they will abut. The architecture provided
demonstrates a level of quality and thoughtfulness we hope is apparent. Homebuyer
selections will provide contained variation, that will foster community but will not create
incongruity. We believe this criterion is met.
4. Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards: Below please find Applicants response to the
specific site plan review criteria in the Regulations.
a. Access to Abutting Properties: The items included in this criterion are addressed in detail
above. See responses at Section 3, subsections, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, herein above for responses.
This criterion is met.
b. Utility Services: See Section III (16-24) above for responses. This criterion is met.
c. Disposal of Waste: All structures proposed will be single family, duplex or tri-plex structures.
All structures will have a garage. All structures will we required to keep their wastes in
37
containers in their garage by association covenants that will be provided at final plat. This
criterion is met.
d. Landscaping and Screening Requirements: See Section V below.
e. Modification of Standards: Because this project is a PUD, standard deviations are permitted
with board approval. Please see waivers requested as part of this application for more
information on this item.
f. Low Impact Development: A complex and detailed stormwater management system is
designed for this project. As mentioned at Section III(35) above, the Applicant has provided
stormwater designs and calculations for review by the City engineer. We will be looking
forward to discussing any questions or changes that would further the goals of this
requirement, but we believe that low impact design and strategies to minimize site
disturbance and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils are in place within this plan.
g. Roadway Standards: See responses to all Section 15.12 criteria at Section III(3-15) herein
above.
VI. Section 13 Supplemental Regulations:
Section 13 of the land development regulations contains a number of supplemental regulations
that may or may not apply to any given project. All of these regulations have been reviewed. Below
please find addressed the regulations that apply to the Project.
1. Section 13.03 Airport Cones: The project is located in the airport approach cone as shown on
the overlay district map. For the Hillside development Applicant was required to procure
permits from the FAA for construction. Permits were procured without issue. This project
proposes a very similar scale of use and construction. All necessary FAA permits will be
procured, adjustments will be made as required. The Applicant will comply with the
requirements of this section.
2. Section 13.04 Swimming Pool: The Project proposes to construct a club facility and swimming
pool that will be part of membership in the homeowner’s association. Each home will be
provided a membership through payment of their annual dues. The Applicant also intends to
make a membership to the pool facility available to the Hillside Homeowners Association
members, as an optional increase to their dues if that is determined to be feasible. The
Applicant believes that there is significant interest and demand on behalf of the existing
Hillside owners, and that this amenity will increase the marketability of the homes in the
Project substantially. The concept for the pool facility is discussed below.
As the board is likely aware, there are only four structures located within the Project lands
currently. One is a single-family residence at 205 Old Farm Road, which will be removed as
part of the Project. There is also a single-family home located at 150 Old Farm Road, which
will be removed as part of the Project. There is a single-family home at 100 Old Farm Road
which will remain but be incorporated into the Project. Lastly, there is a barn structure
located at the top of Old Farm Road, which will be re-energized and incorporated into the
Project.
38
The current plan for the resident club will see the one-story structure attached to the south
side of the barn removed. A new single-story structure will replace it. The single-story
structure is envisioned as having a flat roof for a large portion, and then a gable-end roof over
the great room, such that you can see through the building to the mountain views in the rear.
Details for the building layout are shown at Exhibit 10. The Applicant is very excited for the
design of this structure, which pulls a modern aesthetic into the barn site. This facility will
feature a large kitchen and event space with a fireplace, changing facilities for the pool, a gym
facility, covered walkways and porches, open gathering areas, an all ages pool and children’s
activity pool and landscape elements, including a pergola over a portion of the open sundeck.
Further details for the pool area can be seen at the landscape concept plan, Exhibit 16 and
17.
The pool will include a fence or suitable landscape alternative around the perimeter as
required by this section. The pool is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the lot line, as also
required by this section. Applicant is unsure at this time if any pool house structure will be
required. Currently Applicant is hoping to locate pool equipment within the club building,
though that may change prior to final plat.
3. Section 13.06 Landscaping Screening and Street Trees:
a. 13.06(C) Screening and Buffering: The specific text of this regulation states:
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 recognizes and will be providing significant landscape buffer between
the R1 and IC lands. As currently planned the large buffer/wildlife connection corridor
provides this required screen. Landscape Plan L100, provided at Exhibit 016 very
clearly shows the landscape screening planned. New trees as well as existing trees to
remain are shown on this plan. A tree protection plan provides more detail on the
trees to remain and to be removed and is attached as Exhibit 028. As the board will
see, significant plantings are proposed in this area. Applicant has no intention of
allowing clear lines of site to the IC parcel from the residential neighborhood and will
provide significant landscape buffer in this location.
The Applicant does not believe that any other areas of the plan meet the criteria
outlined herein for requiring this sort of intensive screening. It is Applicants intent to
knit together the rest of the uses in the PUD with landscape design, not to separate
them. We hope the board will concur, and will not require any additional screening
within the plan itself.
39
b. 13.06(E) Site Restoration: Grading and seeding shall be completed as required for all
disturbed areas. Applicant will submit full plans and specifications compliant with
Section 16 of the regulations at Final Plat. These plans are not required at preliminary
plat.
c. Section 13.06(F): Landscaping Plans will be provided from a landscape architect as
required by this sub-section. Currently only conceptual color plans are provided as
full plans are not required at the preliminary plat level.
d. Section 13.06(G) Landscape Budget Requirement: The Applicant will calculate the
budget for construction and the budget for landscape and provide details at Final Plat.
Minimum landscape budget requirements will be met or exceeded.
e. Section 13.06(I) Landscape Maintenance: Applicant seeks clarification from the Board
on this requirement and would request that it not be a condition of the approval for
this neighborhood. Applicant is aware of the three-year period where trees must be
monitored by Applicant and replaced in order for the release of landscape bonds to
be completed. However, the text of this regulation seems to imply that homeowners
will be perpetually and forever liable to replace any landscape element that dies on
their property. This is not a requirement that should be imposed on residential single
family and duplex homeowners. It is a burdensome cost and invasive idea, to think
that the City will inspect their property and require them to spend thousands of
dollars to replace trees, potentially 50 years after the property is built. This provision
would also apply to all the affordable units created, potentially burdening families in
affordable units with thousands of dollars in landscape costs due to a tree disease, or
exceptionally hot weather, and no fault of their own. The Applicant would request
clarification on the plain implications here, and requests a waiver of this provision
such that after the three-year warranty period provided by Applicant, replacement of
dead or dying trees is not required by homeowners.
4. Section 13.07 Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting will be downcast as required by this
Section.
5. Section 13.11 Numbering Systems: Applicant will provide E911 plans at Final Plat. All homes
will have visible numbers from the street installed at construction. Street signs and road signs
will be outlined in detailed traffic and roadway plans at final plat, along with intersection
signalization details.
6. Section 13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage: The requirements of Table 10 apply to building
with more than three units. Applicant is proposing no buildings with more than three units.
Therefore, no bicycle parking is required at any of the proposed single family, duplex, or
triplex structures.
Applicant is proposing an approximately 2,500 square foot club building with a pool and
interior amenity space. Applicant is unclear what use this is, or what number of spaces would
be required. Applicant will install bike parking at this location regardless of the requirement
and will locate bike racks on the project plans. If there is a requirement, Applicant requests
clarification to be sure plans are compliant.
40
7. Section 13.16 Earth Products: Ledge removal incidental to construction will be required for
this Project, but does not appear to be a review criterion of the Regulations under this
provision. That removal will occur via blasting or hammering as required. At Final Plat,
Applicant can present estimates for ledge on site, as well as blasting plans and durations to
provide some context for the ledge that must be removed to facilitate the site plan before
the board including the construction staging area. Currently these details are not known, as
having some certainty on layout of roads and homes is necessary prior to drilling to test for
ledge.
As part of this initial application Applicant is proposing to establish a construction staging area
on Lot 38 and Lot 39. This lot currently contains a knoll that the Applicant has recently walked,
and believes to be fairly shallow ledge. This knoll will be removed at the start of the Project
in order to facilitate construction of the Project staging area.
During the Hillside Project, significant ledge deposits existed in the road and home footprint
foundations. For that reason, ledge was removed to facilitate construction. The result of that
removal was a significant resource to Hillside. By processing approximately 50,000 cubic yards
of stone on site into construction grade products, we were able to reduce significantly the
truck traffic on local streets required for construction, to the tune of over 7,140 truck trips,
this was a reduction of 39,285 miles of truck travel, reducing carbon emission for the project
by 177,000 pounds (89 tons of carbon removed from the project’s footprint). This is a
significant benefit to the City, the environment and the neighbors to the Project.
It is noteworthy that at the State Level, specifically in Act 250 review, Criterion 9D and 9E
concern themselves with ensuring that Projects do not waste or interfere with extraction of
earth resources. In keeping with this concept, Applicant believes that it would be a disservice
to the environment to install housing adjacent to these resources, prohibiting their removal,
without evaluating the use/removal of the resource within the project to construct that
housing. We estimate there to be approximately 95,000 cubic yards of cut proposed to grade
Lot 38 and Lot 39 as shown on the Project Plans. This will facilitate a much more level and
aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create a buildable site shielded from view
from Old Farm Road. The in-place yardage is likely to expand by at least 30% and likely closer
to 40% after being blasted, leaving around 130,000 cubic yards of stone available for project
use. For perspective, this would represent approximately 9,285 truckloads, for which a trip
to and from the quarry would be required. A total truck trip reduction of 18,571 trips or
102,135 miles of trucking to the nearest rock quarry (and sometimes trucks go further for
price purposes), reducing carbon emissions by a minimum of 231 tons.
The proposed location of this staging area is well isolated from any residential area, it sits
beside a major arterial road and can have temporary access to Kimball Avenue for loading
equipment into the site and for contractor parking, but will largely be isolated from the road
network surrounding the existing and planned homes. The nearest residential uses are
hundreds of yards away, and consist largely of homes within this Project. Those neighbors on
Old Farm Road would experience some disturbance do to blasting of the stone, but this
disturbance is likely to occur in any event as much of the road work and home foundations
planned will require blasting. The additional blasting would happen simultaneously, and
would have the benefit of reducing truck trips for all in the longer term. Since we must use
41
blasting to remove ledge and facilitate any project, Applicant feels that an additional removal
in the area of Lot 38 and Lot 39, with the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions and
truck traffic, is well warranted.
Applicant would propose to the Board to address any concerns they have at Final Plat,
provided the board shows support for the concept at preliminary plat. Applicant would
propose to complete noise modeling regarding this removal to provide context for the level
of impact presumed. Applicant will also provide information on blast plans and a third-party
review of such plans as needed by independent engineers at the final plat. Given the distance
to nearby residential areas, no significant vibratory impacts would be expected.
It is anticipated that crushing operations will have an even smaller impact than at Hillside,
as significant grade change will occur, and crusher placement can be such that it is within the
blast area, hemmed in by the sheer wall and stockpiled material. At the time crushing
occurred at Hillside, it is worth noting it was barely audible within the project site, and was
less noisy than ambient traffic in the area and on Kennedy Drive.
We will look forward to discussing this concept and the extraction of this resource on Lot 38
and Lot 39 with the board, and will look forward to providing any needed information during
the preliminary plat hearing.
In closing, Applicant will also volunteer to include a letter of credit sufficient for site
restoration to be held by the City and to ensure that after removal of stone and closing of the
staging area for construction, the site is restored to a meadow condition. Applicant will
provide a plan demonstrating what such final condition would look like if required.
8. Section 13.17 Fences: Fences are conceptually shown on the landscape plan. No fence of
greater than four feet is proposed.
9. Section 13.19 Signs: No signs are proposed at this time. Applicant may elect to propose a
sign at Final Plat, but has no sign planned at this time.
10. Section 13.25 Retaining Walls: Retaining walls are required in some areas of the Project, as
shown on the Project Plans. Full details will be provided at Final Plat. All retaining walls will
be engineered and installed per engineer specifications.
VII. Section 12 Surface Water Protection Standards:
As outlined below, the Project is designed in conformance with applicable standards of Section
12 of the Regulations. As with Section 13 above, only those items that are relevant are addressed below.
1. Section 12.01(C) Stream Buffers: No development or clearing is proposed in any stream
buffers. The Project complies fully with this Section.
2. Section 12.01(E): The Project does include land within 150 feet of the Potash Brook. Currently
no development is proposed in this area, other than potentially the development of a
recreation path for the benefit of the City and the development of a walking trail. If the City
42
would like to invoke technical review, please provide details and we will work with you at the
final plat level. We are confident in our design and environmental protection measures.
3. Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards: In compliance with this section all wetlands on
the Project site have been professionally delineated by Gilman and Briggs. Those delineations
are reflected in the Project plans. No impact or encroachment in any wetland or wetland
buffer is proposed by the Project. The criteria of this section are met.
4. Section 12.03 Stormwater Management: The stormwater management practice has been
designed in accordance with all applicable State and City rules by a qualified engineer. Plans
and included stormwater calculations (Exhibit 019) illustrate the methodology used. We will
look forward to a robust review and cooperative engagement with City engineers to make
sure the Project is compliant with these criteria.
VIII. Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards:
Applicant intends to comply fully with these standards and will develop compliant plans as
required for Final Plat. The volume of work required for developing these plans, prior to preliminary plat
approval, was not possible. We look forward to working with the board and the City on these plans in the
future.
IX. Section 18: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As the Board knows, the City has recently implemented an inclusionary housing policy in the
Regulations. The requirements of the policy are fairly straightforward, with regard to the proposed
Project, and will result in the creation of nine (9) three-bedroom homes for sale at a price determined in
compliance with the methodology outlined in this ordinance. A brief summary of the applicable
regulations follows. As is the case above, for those regulations that are not applicable, or where
compliance will be handled at a later stage, no discussion is provided.
1. Section 18.02(B) Applicability: The Project is located in lands designated for application of
Section 18 on the map located at Section 18.02(B). The requirements of this section apply
to the Project.
2. 18.02(C)(1) Inclusionary Units: Per Section 18.02(C)(1): “At least ten percent (10%) of the
total dwelling units offered for sale …. Shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units.”
Per this section, where the application of the formula results in a fraction, that fraction shall
be rounded to the nearest whole number. In this project we are proposing 132 new
dwellings. Therefore 13.2 Inclusionary Ownership units are required, and that number is
rounded down to be 13 Inclusionary Ownership Units being required.
3. Section 18.01(C)(2) Requirements for Inclusionary Units:
a. Constructed on site: All units proposed will be constructed in the neighborhood
proposed. This criterion is met.
43
b. Integrated into the project layout and similar in architectural and outward
appearance. The Project proposes inclusionary unit type TH-1. This unit is included
in the Meadow Loop Triplex and is the middle unit. The architecture of the unit, as
evidenced in the architectural exhibit provided at Exhibit 024 is indistinguishable
from the market rate units on either side. This criterion is met.
c. Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall
layout. The inclusionary units proposed are in the center of the development,
located in the same buildings as the market rate units. The units are fully integrated
into the site plan, the neighborhood, and the buildings they are located in.
d. Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials. Identical
exterior architecture is proposed for the TH-1 and the neighboring units. They are
indistinguishable from the exterior. We believe this criterion is met.
e. Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior
amenities and habitable area. The minimum habitable area for three-bedroom or
four-bedroom units will be 1200 square feet. The project has not determined the
precise interior finishes for the inclusionary or market rate units at this time. In
keeping with this provision, those may differ and therefore do not need to be
discussed or analyzed in this application. All three-bedroom or four-bedroom units
proposed are larger than 1200 square feet and therefore the size requirements of
this provision are met.
f. Inclusionary Unit Building Types. This provision allows for inclusionary units to be
constructed in buildings containing up to four inclusionary dwellings. We are
proposing one inclusionary dwelling in each triplex proposed. The requirements of
this section are met.
g. Common Area Indications of Inclusionary: None are allowed and none are proposed.
The inclusionary and market rate units are indistinguishable from the exterior of the
building. This criterion is met.
h. Mean number of Bedrooms: The Applicant is offering 2 bedroom, 3-bedroom, 4-
bedroom, 5- bedroom and 6-bedroom floor plans. Potentially, buyers could opt for
more bedrooms if they chose to do so. However, buyer does not typically see
homes of more than four bedrooms built, and the most common floor plans contain
two or three bedrooms. For this reason, Applicant is estimating that by building 3-
bedroom or four-bedroom inclusionary units, we can guarantee that the
inclusionary dwellings will have no fewer bedrooms than the average number in the
market rate units.
4. Section 18.01(C)(2)(c) Concurrent Construction: The specific requirement states that
inclusionary units shall be “constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with
market rate units.” The inclusionary units proposed are integral to a market rate building.
Therefore, the building of the market rate units will necessitate the construction of the
inclusionary units. These buildings are also located in the phase of construction Applicant
anticipates will be constructed first. Given this, the inclusionary units will be some of the
44
first constructed, and must (by nature of their physical connection to market rate homes) be
constructed concurrently.
5. Section 18.01(D) Affordability Requirements: As outlined in this section certain affordability
requirements exist, as well as certain income requirements. These requirements will be
addressed and worked through with the City as sales of the homes commence. Applicant
will work proactively with the City or other agencies to ensure these requirements are met,
in accordance with this Section.
6. Section 18.01(E) Developer Options: This section is where details are provided on the
available reduction of inclusionary requirements through construction of 3-bedroom and 4-
bedroom homes. Currently, Applicant has provided a floor plan that in the base format is 3-
bedrooms, but which can also hold a fourth bedroom located in the basement level (with
egress access added through large windows and window wells). These finished basement
options are very popular in the market rate homes as well, and offer bright and beautiful
finished space.
With that said, the Applicant intends to construct a mix of 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units.
This Section states:
A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for
three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These
credit inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for
four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These
credit inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
While this language is a little bit challenging, it essentially states that each three-bedroom
home counts as 1.5 inclusionary homes, and each 4-bedroom home counts as 2.
Essentially, what this means is that the Applicant could satisfy its 13-unit requirement by
building 6, four-bedroom homes, and one three-bedroom home. Similarly, if Applicant two
four-bedroom homes, and six three-bedroom homes, Applicant will have credit for 13
affordable units.
You will notice that Applicant has included 8 footprint lots in the plan for the neighborhood
that are eligible for the TH-1 footprint. Applicant intends at a minimum to build two, four-
bedroom homes, and for the remainder to be three-bedroom homes. This would mean that
in the eight available footprints, Applicant will satisfy the 13-unit requirement.
Applicant is eligible for these reductions because Applicant is not able to build the offset
units provided by the Regulations due to coverage limitations. As noted earlier, Applicant is
well short of the base density allowed in the R1. The Regulations did not provide enough
relief from coverage to make this possible. This is unfortunate, as Applicant did make the
City aware of this issue prior to passing the ordinance.
45
7. Section 18.01(F) Offset for Fulfillment: As mentioned above, the Applicant is not building
any offset units because the base density of the development cannot be fully built under the
coverage restrictions in the R1. That said, the Applicant is making use of this provision to
enable the development of more housing, and therefore, more affordable housing within
the Project. Specifically, Section 18.01(F)(c), which states:
Where a zoning district establishes a maximum building coverage of less than twenty
percent (20%) and/or a maximum overall lot coverage of less than thirty percent
(30%), the applicable maximum coverage in that district shall be increased to
accommodate the offset units. For Inclusionary Ownership Units, this increase shall
be twenty percent (20%) and for Inclusionary Rental Units, this increase shall be
fifteen percent (15%).
As you will note in the coverage table attached as Exhibit 029, the allowed coverage
for the R1 lands has been increased. This increase is in line with this provision. The
base coverage limit in the R1-PRD is 15% for buildings and 25% for all. This coverage
limit has been increased by 20% as allowed by this section, to become 18% for
buildings and 30% for all. As noted, with this increase the Project is in compliance
with lot coverage limitations.
X. Dimensional Standards, Lot Lines and Setbacks
As outlined above, the Project proposes development in three different zoning districts. Each
district has its own set of dimensional standards. As outlined at Exhibit 004, we have evaluated the
dimensional standards on a lot by lot basis. Coverage has been reviewed collectively on a zoning district
wide basis, as shown at Exhibit 029 and as allowed within the PUD. Please note that in evaluating
coverage, the coverage limit was expanded in the R1 land as allowed under the newly adopted
inclusionary ordinance. The details of this are outlined in Section IX(7) herein above.
With the exception of setback waivers in the R1 district the Project complies fully with
dimensional standards as currently planned. To clarify, as proposed the Project requires only setback
waivers to be in full compliance with dimensional standards. Other waivers are requested in the context
of the PUD and future development potential, for the benefit of the Project and in recognition of the
need for security in permitting future phases.
1. Minimum Lot Size, All Districts:
All lots proposed in the Project meet the minimum lot size requirements of the regulations in all
districts.
2. IC Lot Setbacks:
A front setback waiver to 5’ is being requested. Otherwise these lots are in conformance with
the Regulations.
3. C1-LR Lot Setback:
46
The Applicant is requesting that as relates to internal project roads, the front yard or side yard
or rear yard setback will be reduced to be 5’. The setbacks to Kennedy and Kimball Avenue would be
reduced to be 30’.
Applicant believes strongly that the best design for the commercial lots shown will be to have
buildings fronting on the newly planned streets. Given our past hearings with the board and meetings
with staff, we feel this is the overwhelming preference in the broader community as well. To this end,
we do not believe the setback waivers will be controversial. We simply want to secure the underlying
condition that we know is necessary for good development on these lots, so as to be confident in our
investment to create them. We look forward to discussing this issue with the board.
4. R1 Lot Setback Waiver Requests:
In reviewing the setbacks proposed the Applicant would first provide some general guidance for
consideration.
• In very few areas are the setbacks proposed abutting property lines that are outside of the
Project boundaries or Applicant’s control. In fact, the only setbacks that border adjacent
lands under separate ownership are side setbacks for Lot 34 and 36, and rear setbacks for
Lot 16 (partially only) and Lot 35. In only four instances in the entire list of waivers
requested, is the Applicant proposing an impact to an owner other than Applicant or a
related party. In the case of Lot 16, at the time of this Application, only two abutting homes
are sold or under contract. Meaning that the vast majority of the land abutting the
proposed property (approximately 90% of the border) is still under the control of the
O’Brien Group.
• Not all setbacks are abutting other homes. In some cases, setbacks approach lots lines for
right of ways or open space fields where other owners are not impacted.
• Applicant has done their best to differentiate front, rear and side, but some lots, like Lot 20
appear to have two fronts? In the chart at Exhibit 004, we have provided road names where
it is unclear if the setback is to a front or rear so that the Board is aware which dimension
we are reviewing.
In general, the goal of the setback waivers requested in the R1 district is to encourage homes to
be closer to the street. The dimensions of the neighborhood are very similar to the dimensions of the
Hillside neighborhood currently under construction. While homes are close together, the community
formed is outstanding and we hope to continue to encourage this kind of development. Specifically, the
setbacks being requested are listed on a lot by lot basis at Exhibit 004. I have discussed the lots in
context below for your review in discussing these waivers.
a. Lot 16: This lot proposes construction of single-family homes ranging in size from 1700-2800
square feet. The homes are two stories at the street. We have placed these homes such
that all rear yard setbacks are currently greater than 15 feet for lots 16-1 to 16-13. It should
be noted that where these homes are placed, the existing Hillside homes also own a
significant back yard space. Dimensionally, the homes planned on Lot 16 are much further
apart than the homes on Ledge Way and Laurentide Lane, or Ledge Way and Split Rock
Court. Both of these areas are built, and have been very successful. In fact, the proximity
has benefited the neighborhood feel and the community. Applicant is of course happy to
47
plant significant screening along the property line in this location to provide privacy to both
yards, and intends to do so.
As you continue down Lot 16 to footprint lots 16-14 and 16-15, you find where the
minimum setback requested is located. For these two lots a 5’ setback is being requested.
This is necessary to fit these homes with the new road orientation developed per the
request of the board at Sketch Plan. Also, a stormwater easement is located between lots
16-15 and 16-16. This easement forces the deeper configuration shown. The Board should
note that in this area, no homes exist in Hillside. The 5’ setback will be to a property line
where a field then leads an additional large open space eventually reaching Two Brothers
Drive. No adjacent homes will be materially impacted by this waiver. Lots 16-16-17 are also
looking for a 5’ minimum rear yard setback. In this location the two lots abut a large open
space and so the Applicant believes the setback is feasible.
It should also be noted that these are minimums. For the purpose of calculating the setback
we have used the largest home footprints. These can be 10 feet or more deeper than the
smaller homes also available. The buyer will be able to choose smaller footprints and
increased setbacks if that is desirable.
The side yard setback requested of 6’ is located in the area where Open Space Lot 18 abuts
home 16-1. Applicant feels this waiver should pose no concern as it has no impact on any
adjacent property owners.
b. Lot 20: The Applicant has worked hard to achieve a design for Lot 20 that works with the
configuration proposed. The goal has consistently been to achieve a desirable street
presence and to frame in the views and barn with architecture and community. To do this,
Applicant felt it made sense to have access to the homes fronting on Old Farm Road at the
rear. Rear loaded access is very challenging when homes are fronting on a public street, and
loading from a second public street. The reality is that the homes have no private space at
all outdoors. To accommodate that, interior courtyards are being proposed, but these have
a tendency to lengthen the buildings.
The current configuration of the plan has a front yard setback minimum on lot 20 of about
1’. It appears to be the case that a setback waiver of this nature would not be allowed.
Applicant can adjust the homes back from the right of way, but would prefer not to. The
proximity to Old Farm Road in the current layout is most desirable. The goal is to bring the
development closer to the street and not to push it further out, creating a sort of runway on
Old Farm Road where homes seem distant and vehicles are more encouraged to speed.
The Old Farm Road ROW is 66’ currently, despite the road itself being 20’ wide. Roads
proposed in this application are 20 feet wide with a 50’ right of way. Even with the
development proposed, no widening of Old Farm Road is foreseen. Furthermore, the
Applicant is proposing to move the road anyway at the north end, which will result in a
complicated process at the City Council to grant the change shifting the ROW. Since that
process is being pursued regardless of this setback issue, the Applicant would like the Board
to consider recommending the reduction of the 66’ ROW. It could be reduced to be 56’ or
even 50’. This would enable the homes on Lot 20 to keep their proximity to the road, and
would also enable the homes on Lot 31 to potentially move closer to the road. It would be a
48
great benefit to the feel of the development, and a traffic calming measure for Old Farm
Road. We would request the opinion of the Board on this suggestion. Should it not be
possible, the Applicant will adjust the setback to be 5’.
The side yard setbacks requested here are the distance from the end units to the ROW for
20-26. The Applicant does not believe this poses any issue and hopes it is acceptable.
The rear yard setbacks are the distance from the Home to Meadow Loop. It should be
noted that the garage is set back 20’ from the edge of the sidewalk. So, while the building is
projecting toward the ROW, there is still room to park a car between the sidewalk and the
home. This is intentional, to allow for nicer architecture and a street presence on Meadow
Loop as well.
c. Lot 30: Lot 30 has homes fronting on both Legacy Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road East.
The minimum setback to the ROW proposed for this lot is 11’. Similar to Lot 20, we have
allowed room between the sidewalk and the garage for parking a car.
The side yard setback is proposed to be five feet. The side yards both abut lots within this
project, Lot 24 and Lot 47. Lot 24 is a C1-LR lot where no building is currently proposed.
The Applicant has no concern with addressing future development on Lot 24 to
accommodate for this reduced setback. Lot 47 is a large park, and the applicant feels an
increased setback to a large open green space is not needed.
d. Lot 31: This lot contains homes that front on Old Farm Road and Legacy Farm Road. Rear
yard setbacks are well over the minimum of 30’. Side yard setbacks are slightly reduced
from 25’ required to 10’. A waiver is also requested to allow front yard setbacks of 11’.
These setbacks could likely be increased if the Old Farm Road right of way can be shrunk,
but we wanted to orient the homes closer to Old Farm Road, as discussed regarding Lot 20
above.
e. Lot 32: Lot 32 has a pre-existing side yard setback that is below what is required. Applicant
does not plan any new structures within this setback. A Pool patio is planned, but patios are
not structures counted. The Applicant does not believe any waiver is required for this pre-
existing setback.
f. Lot 33: Lot 33: Rear yard setbacks requested are relative to the Lot 32 lot line, which is the
open space and common amenity building. The applicant could shift this lot line and reduce
the open space lot to make these setbacks compliant. However, we feel it is better to have
the open space lot bigger, as that has common benefits, not singular benefits to unit
owners. Front yard setback waivers are also sought to pull homes closer to the street, while
allowing cars to park in the driveway without blocking sidewalks. Side yard waivers are
requested in keeping with our development pattern, which is to place homes closer
together and conserve large tracts of open space. The side yard setback of 25’ prescribed in
this district would have an extremely negative impact on available open space in this plan,
and we hope this is easily recognizable.
g. Lot 34: A rear yard setback waiver to reduce the required setback to 11’ is requested. This
minimum setback exists between the homes planned on Lot 34, and the lot line to Lot 35.
49
Lot 35 is within the Project, homes planned there are part of the Project and we feel relate
well to the homes on Lot 34. A front yard setback of 8’ is requested, again to pull
development toward the street, in keeping with the current trends in the City, and in
keeping with the direction of current best practices for land planning. Side yard setback
reductions are requested in keeping with the development plan and pattern.
h. Lot 35: Side yard waivers are requested. Again, the side yard waivers of this district are not
conducive to consolidating open space, but are more in line with sprawling development on
larger lots. This waiver is sought in keeping with the compact development proposals
before the Board.
A rear yard waiver with an abutting property outside the Project is also requested.
Applicant intends to preserve an existing significant buffer of trees in this location to
minimize the impact to the neighboring property.
i. Lot 36: Front yard setbacks are proposed to bring homes closer to the street, in line with
the development pattern proposed in the neighborhood. Minimal rear and side yard
setbacks are required. These setbacks are all relative to the Project, save the one side
setback at Lot 36-5. A reduction of 7’ is requested, leaving 23’ for the side yard setback.
j. Lot 37: Front yard setbacks are proposed to bring homes closer to the street in line with the
development pattern proposed in the neighborhood. No rear yard setback waivers are
required. Side yard setback waivers are required. These setbacks are all relative to the
Project lands. No external boundaries are impacted.
5. Project Lot Coverage All Areas:
A table is provided at Exhibit 029. Lot coverage has been evaluated in this table based on all of
the Project lands, on a zoning district by zoning district basis. As you can see at Exhibit 003, we have
identified the areas of the project that are within each different zoning district. Those areas each have
allowed coverage maximum. Each maximum is analyzed in the table at Exhibit 029. As you will see, in
each district the project complies and the total impervious area, as defined in the Regulations, is below
the maximums allowed.
The Applicant does want to point out that in calculating the coverage for the R1 lands, where a
site plan proposal is before the board, Applicant made use of all of the biggest unit floor plans available
on each lot. There is a chance that if buyers choose smaller plans, the coverage will not get as close to
the maximum. In fact we feel it is likely that we will not see all the largest plans chosen, but we
nevertheless must plan for that, as it is possible. Given this, it should be noted that Applicant has limited
additional coverage available in the R1 area. This is why we have not achieved the density allowed in
the R1 lands, and it is why we have not proposed to take full advantage of the affordable offset units
available to the Project. Applicant will seek to secure the density that is not buildable in the R1 lands,
within findings of the PUD, to be available in the C1-LR. Applicant will address density in a different
section, but mentions this here simply to say that additional impervious surfaces are not feasible in the
R1 area of the Project.
In the C1-LR and IC lands, coverage is not anywhere near the allowed maximums as no
construction other than roads and pedestrian infrastructure is proposed. The Applicant would request
50
that in its findings, the Board secure that the coverage for all the IC lots and all the C1-LR lots, will be
reviewed in totality, not on a lot by lot basis, and that the coverage allowed will be as stated in the table
at Exhibit 029. Applicant does want to control risk related to changes that might diminish the currently
buildable area on these lots.
6. Building Height and Stories IC:
No structures or waivers are proposed at this time. No story limit appears in the regulations.
The Applicant is ok with the height limitation in this district given the type of use and development
allowed.
7. Building Height and Stories R1:
The building height in the R1 is unnecessarily restrictive, much like the height in the C1-LR. It is
unfortunate that the board is not able to waive the height limitations. If there is a method for doing
this, Applicant would very much be interested in moving the limit up a couple of feet. That said,
Applicant has designed all architecture to comply with the 28-foot limit. In some instances, this will
mean reducing second floor ceiling heights, which greatly impacts marketability, it also means reducing
roof pitch, which can have negative architectural impacts, and is unfortunate for the citizens and future
residents of the City, that such an artificially low limit would restrict their purchase quality. Regardless,
all homes constructed will measure 28’ or less to the mid-point of the roof relative to the
preconstruction grades. No waiver is sought and the Project will comply. All homes are planned to be
one story or two story facing the street. All homes will be less than four stories total, as required.
8. Building Height and Stories C1-LR:
No structures are currently proposed on the lots in the C1-LR Project lands. However, the
Applicant is specifically requesting of the Board that on Lot 17, Lot 21-29, a finding be issued which
allows for future buildings to be constructed at a height of four stories over podium, with a maximum
height of no more than 60 feet from the finish floor elevation of the lowest level to the roofline of a flat
roof or mid-way point of a pitched roof.
This finding is being requested in order to facilitate the plan before the Board. A plan which
incorporates 28% of available project land as parks and open space. A plan which invests in significant
road, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure including many long-term city goals such as a dog park, and
which completes construction of a key connection from Kimball Avenue to the border of our property
with Tilley Drive. With this finding the Applicant may also be able to accelerate investment in important
items for the City, such as the dog park, or the rec path connection. Security will enable investment.
Absent this finding construction of those spaces will need to be tied to viable development in the C1-LR
areas, as the certainty needed will not exist.
We hope the Board recognizes that making the commitments outlined here is not something
that can be sustained with only the residential development now presented. The C1-LR lots play a
critical role in this project. With the current height limit that could potentially limit building to only two
stories, the development potential of those lots simply cannot withstand the infrastructure, parks,
playground, rec-paths, work-out loops, scenic vistas, and other amenities now proposed. We hope that
there is a path forward where enough certainty can be created to facilitate these investments earlier in
the project, for the benefit of Project residents and others in the City.
51
XI. Waivers Requested Summary List:
1. Applicant requests a height waiver to allow for buildings of four stories, not to exceed 60’ in
total height from the lowest slab elevation to the top of a flat roof on Lot 17, Lot 21-29.
2. Applicant requests minimum setbacks as follows for Lot 16: Front 6’; Side 6’, Back 5’.
3. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 20: Front 1’; Rear 9’ Side 17,
4. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 30: Front 11; Rear 21’ Side 5’.
5. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 31: Front 11; Side 10’.
6. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 33: Front 12; Rear 13’; Side 7’.
7. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 34: Front 8’; Rear 11’ Side 8’.
8. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 35: Side 14’.
9. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 36: Front 15’; Rear 29’; Side 23’.
10. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 37: Front 10’, Side 11’.
11. Applicant requests minimum setback as follows for Lot 17 and Lot 21-29: Front 5’, Rear 30’,
Side 5.
12. Applicant requests the provisions of Section 3.06(B) are waived with regard to minimum
setbacks to Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue, and that setbacks be 30’ minimum as
outlined above.
13. Applicant requests a waiver of Section 3.06I for future projects within the PUD. Applicant is
happy to address screening concerns in this PUD approval. A landscape plan will be put in
place to mitigate those concerns. Additional requirements under this section to be waived.
14. Applicant requests a waiver of Section 3.07(B)(3)(a). As part of a PUD, the Applicant is
explicitly indicating that homes planned will be adjacent to taller buildings. No lots in the
R12 district or C1-LR district lands included in the Project abut any owner other than
Applicant or entities controlled by Applicant. Given this, there is no concern that would
merit enforcement of this provision. Taller buildings on Lot 17, 21-29 is the plan. Approval
of the PUD will necessitate waiver of this provision.
15. Applicant requests a finding that all landscape requirements associated with any building
within the Master Plan, may be used on any lot within the master plan, subject to Board
approval.
16. Applicant requests a waiver of the requirements of 13.06(I) as pertains to the R1 lands. This
requirement is a long-term burden on owners of single-family homes and must be modified
52
to ensure that beyond the 3-year warranty secured by requisite letters of credit, owners
have no liability for replacement of dead or dying plants on their property. To warrant for
eternity to replace any plant that dies on your property is simply unjustifiable in this form of
development. Applicant does not see an issue with the requirement in the larger format
settings of the IC or C1-LR where building owners can plan and manage around such
requirements. Applicant sees no issue with prohibiting the removal of approved
landscaping, but requiring replacement of something that dies naturally over time seems
unnecessary and punishing to those who may not be able to afford such.
17. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD all single family, duplex and triplex homes
may convert their porches or decks to covered porches or decks with only the issuance of a
zoning permit and without DRB review.
18. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD applications for Sketch Plan review are
voluntary on behalf of the Applicant.
19. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD Applicant may file final plat only for
proposed amendments to the PUD.
20. Applicant requests a finding that within the PUD, development of any single structure on a
single lot need only apply for Site Plan review.
21. 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.
22. Applicant is requesting waivers related to City Bonding Requirements to address significant
issues during the Hillside Development.
a. Applicant requests that value of street trees be included in public improvement
infrastructure bonding calculations. A finding of the Board would state that street
tree costs though allocated to the landscape budget, shall be public improvements
considered part of the roadway bonding. Currently, O’Brien Brothers is needing to
provide two separate credit facilities. One that is for the infrastructure value, road,
sidewalk, pavement, etc., and a second entirely different letter of credit or bond, for
the value of the street trees on that road. The differentiation is that the street tree
bond needs to last three years. In no case does Applicant foresee a roadway
completed and turned over to the City prior to trees being in place for three years.
In no case does the Applicant foresee the 10% retainage on millions in roadway cost
to be insufficient to replace a few $700 trees. The Applicant has been unable to
procure timely release of bonding, the City Staff is overwhelmed (as are we) by the
volume of separate credit facilities submitted, and the requirement of having two
separate facilities for this seems completely unnecessary and overcomplicated. As
recently as this year, a $631,000.00 letter of credit reduction was requested on
5/19, and was not procured until mid-August. Applicant hopes the board can find
accordingly. It just makes sense and makes things easier all around, and is within the
Boards authority to modify regulations, within a PUD.
53
b. Infrastructure Budget Contingency: The O’Brien Group has been required at Hillside
to include a 15% contingency on top of the estimated cost of improvements for
bonding. I am sure the Board can recognize that for a $10,000,000 project, having
$1,500,000 of contingency credit and liquidity available can be problematic.
Applicant does not believe this contingency offers any benefit to the City. If
Applicant starts construction, the 15% will be constructed very quickly, and the City
will still hold bonding for 100% of the cost. The contingency can be assumed, very
easily, to be the work Applicant completes prior to the first bond release requested.
A more suitable alternative would be to say that Applicant cannot request release
beyond 25% of the bond value, until the road is 100% complete. In this manner, the
City is retaining the 15% contingency until the road is constructed. For example, if
Applicant filed a bond for 100% and then completed 30% of the work, the City
would release only 5% of the value. This would continue until 100% of the work was
completed at which point 90% of the bond could be released. This gets the City
identical security, but relieves the financing burden on Applicant needing to finance
115% of cost. This financing cost can increase home prices and slow down
construction by restricting credit unnecessarily.
Applicant would request a finding stating that the Board finds Applicant must bond
for 100% of the Public improvement costs without contingency, and waives the
requirements of Section 15.15(C). The release of bonding shall be as always at the
discretion of the City Engineer. In this way, the City Engineer can keep the 15% until
the end as outlined above if he so chooses or release more if the work is good and
sufficient in their determination, and Applicant can keep the additional liquidity to
finance actual construction.
c. Landscape Bonding: The landscape bonding at Hillside is incredibly challenging. The
City has required an expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In this
project too, Applicant expects very large sums to be required under Section 13. The
Regulations then say we must bond for that for three years from the date of
completion. The difficulty here is that the first plants in the Project may go in in
2022, the last, in 2032. To remedy this at Hillside, O’Brien Brothers developed
multiple landscape bond phases, over 20, actually. The logistics of tracking which
phase we are in, when it was filed, keeping dozens of letters of credit open,
watching they don’t expire, tracking them with the City, is detrimental to City Staff
and the Applicant. This excessive amount of work is unnecessary.
The Applicant would seek a finding from the Board that could easily relieve this,
which is to say that Applicant may release landscape bonds three years following
the issuance of a zoning permit for the phase, or home in which the landscaping is
located. Essentially allowing a phased reduction of bond value over the course of
the project, three years after the date the plantings were installed. In this scenario,
Applicant would propose only 4-5 total landscaping phases, and would be able to
simplify the paperwork required.
23. Applicant is requesting a waiver of the typical duration provided between issuance of final
plat and the first zoning permit. Applicant would request a period of two years between the
required issuance of the first zoning permit and the issuance of final plat. Applicant would
54
request that the finding be written such that the project start may be delayed further upon
written request due to delays in the issuance of project permits. Applicant plans to procure
full City permits and then enter the Act 250 process. This process may take years to
complete. Applicant wants to ensure that sufficient time is provided to plan and procure
permits to start the project after Final Plat is issued.
24. Applicant has requested a waiver to the cul-de-sac requirements of Section 15 if necessary,
to enable the center island of the planned cul-de-sac on O’Brien Farm Road East to be
planted and not paved.
25. Applicant requests that the Board find that the landscape transition between the R1 and IC
lands is sufficient and effectual as planned in this PUD, which creates these distinct areas of
relatively incongruous use. Specifically, that the Board will waive the requirements of
14.06(C)(A) related to the use of common elements and materials between buildings, as
pertains to development of the IC land abutting the R1. This criterion is simply not possible
to satisfy with such incongruous uses. Applicant recommends that landscaping and
buffering be confirmed in this PUD, and that future applications be relieved from this review
element, to provide certainty that those uses may be developed. Otherwise any owner of a
home bought in the R1, could appeal Applicant’s future permits under this condition,
claiming that the building type was not congruous, materials were too different, etc.
XII. Project Details Outside of Specific Regulation Compliance:
1. Project Phasing
Applicant has provided a phasing plan for the Project which is attached at Exhibit 030. This plan
breaks the project into 17 distinct named phases. The phases are not provided in any sequence, but
they do show how the Applicant would intend to break up the work required for the Project. Applicant
has intentionally designed the phasing plan to allow for small portions of the Project to be completed.
The Board will note that each open space area is provided its own phase number. It would be the
Applicants goal to provide triggers for the completion of each open space. For instance, the Lot 18 open
space must be established prior to completion of 50% of the Meadow Loop phase. Lot 19 Open Space
would be more challenging, it would need to be tied to the Relocated Old Farm Road Phase, as part of
that space is in the existing Old Farm Road. Applicant hopes the board can see here how the phases can
proceed logically to construct the neighborhood. Applicant is able to make a proposal on phasing and
phase triggers at final plat, with guidance from the Board at preliminary plat hearings.
In terms of the planned phasing, it is Applicant’s intent to start with the Meadow Loop Phase.
This will provide a mix of townhome and single-family product, and also includes the proposed
inclusionary units. In this manner, the inclusionary units will be some of the first built in the
development, and the Board can feel confident that they are happening concurrently, as required.
Applicant would then proceed with Village Green Phase, and the Legacy Farm, Mountainview and North
Slope Phase, working its way back south to complete the Legacy Farm loop road. As mentioned above,
construction of the Open Space phases can be timed with unit count triggers in the residential phases.
Keeping in mind that we would want to complete construction on surrounding areas prior to opening
the parks for safety reasons.
55
Applicant notes that the relocation of Old Farm Road is not required for traffic safety reasons
during the construction of the 128-single family, duplex and tri-plex homes proposed, as outlined in the
traffic study attached at Exhibit 013. Applicant would therefore not propose to complete the Relocated
Old Farm Road Phase, or the O’Brien Farm Road Extension Phase, until development on the north end of
the Project warranted such.
Applicant is happy to discuss the proposed phasing and open space construction with the Board
and will look forward to your feedback. It is unclear however under which criteria this is reviewed. We
will look forward to better understanding this at our hearing.
2. Neighborhood Design Restrictions:
As with Hillside, the Applicant has presented a number of available architectural offerings and
will be presenting buyers with color choices for siding, shingles, doors, windows and other exterior
accents. In the Hillside development the Applicant proposed a design memorandum that regulated
identical elevations on roadways. While laudable in intent, it has proven to be incredibly difficult to
track, and proven to be unnecessary. The offerings in terms of floor plans, finishes, lot location, etc.,
have proven effective at achieving a varied and organic feeling neighborhood. Applicant is happy to
propose a design memorandum again for this community with similar terms to be discussed, however,
Applicant would request that compliance with the memorandum be regulated differently than by
examination at zoning permit issuance. Applicant is happy to voluntarily comply, or to potentially
incorporate the design memorandum into the HOA documents as lot design restrictions (provided a
legal review made that possible or confirmed it is possible). However, Applicant is not looking to create
an onerous permit milestone to achieve a goal that is very much in our own interest and which we will
enforce on a voluntary basis. We consistently monitor and restrict unit types and design to achieve
variation and improve project aesthetics. We are offering dozens of different elevations for the 128
homes. While we appreciate the City may want to enforce this, with the complexity and size of the
project it seems that allowing Applicant to police this themselves would be most expeditious.
3. Earth Work Estimations:
Appendix E of the regulations lists as an application requirement: “Estimate of all earthwork,
including the quantity of any material to be imported to, or removed from the site, or a statement that
no material is to be removed or imported.” Applicant is not able to make a firm statement on this item
at this time. The details of the substance before the board will greatly influence the facts that underly
this question. For instance, if we are able to process ledge on site, it will greatly reduce the need to
import any material, and potentially eliminate the need for any import/export related to site
construction. It should be stated that Applicant believes this site, for the construction outlined can be
planned to be neutral, and that with proper care, even processed stone materials required can be
produced on site. In this scenario, the applicant can state that no materials will be removed or
imported. However, as our discussions evolve, we will need to revisit this assumption.
XIII. Conclusion
Applicant is pleased to bring forward the Project outlined above and to work with City Staff and
the Board to refine the Project and move it forward. We believe this proposal creates a framework that
can enable the growth and development of the Project lands over the next ten to fifteen years, and we
hope that the Board agrees. While there is much information here, the Applicant has focused this
56
narrative on the specific review criteria that apply. We hope that the Board will focus their review on
such as well. It is very easy to imagine different outcomes for the Project site, and it is very difficult to
commit to a framework and move forward. Applicant has spent the past 10 years analyzing different
opportunities and paths forward for this land. This proposal is the culmination of that work. We don’t
know everything about what will be built, and we won’t until the last site plan proposal is filed. Our
focus with this permit is the framework, the guardrails for the Project and the basic inclusions for its
residents and future owners/businesses. These inclusions and guardrails require commitment. By the
Applicant, but also by the City. Proceeding with the investment and construction of this Project is a
major commitment. The permit findings requested are the security for that work. We look forward to
discussing this further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development
Enclosures