HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-16-03 - Decision - 0255 Kennedy Drive#M P-16-03
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
O'BRIEN FARM ROAD, LLC-255 KENNEDY DRIVE
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-16-03
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Master plan application #MP-16-03 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to
develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255
Kennedy Drive.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 20, 2016, January 3, 2017, January
17, 2017 and February 7, 2017. The applicant was represented by Andrew Gill and Evan Langfeldt.
Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, O'Brien Farm Road, LLC, seeks master plan approval for a planned unit development
to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office
space, 255 Kennedy Drive.
2. The owners of record of the subject property are O'Brien Family Limited Partnership and O'Brien
Home Farm, LLC.
3. The subject property is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1 with Limited Retail, and
Residential 1-PRD Zoning Districts.
4. The application was received on November 23, 2016.
5. All materials submitted for #MP-16-01 and all hearings related to #MP-16-01 are part of the record
for this application.
6. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page dated November 21, 2016, titled "Master Plan," and
prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.
A) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN
Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, "any application
for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the
master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the
property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan:
a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to
the master plan;
The applicant is seeking approval for 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of commercial space of
unknown type.
b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;
This project is unique in that it will include single family, two-family, multi -family, and non-residential
uses and the zoning districts within which those uses will occur have different sets of coverage limits
depending on whether a use is single and two-family or multi -family and residential. The vast majority
of the project area is in the Residential 12 Zoning District in which single and two-family uses have a
permitted building coverage of 30% and overall coverage of 40% and multi -family and non-residential
uses have a permitted building coverage of 40% and overall coverage of 60%.
The applicant would like to benefit from clustering density in some places and providing more open
space in other places while having the total site coverage be calculated over the entire area of the
Master Plan. To do this with a variety of housing and non-residential uses that occupy two (2) different
sets of coverage limitations as outlined above, the Board finds that to be manageable it will create one
(1) set of coverage limitations which will apply to the entire Master Plan area. The Board finds that the
Master Plan area must not exceed a total building coverage of 35%, which is between 30% and 40% as
described above, and must not exceed an overall coverage of 50%, which is between 40% and 60% as
described above.
c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property
subject to the master plan;
Three (3) collector roadways are proposed and are indicated on the Master Plan as New City Road "A,"
New City Road "B," and New City Road "E."
d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the
approved master plan application; and/or
The applicant proposes Zone 4, Zone 4A, Zone 5, Zone 5A, and Zone 5B as indicated on the Master Plan
as permanent open spaces.
e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan.
The application materials state the project will generate 428 P.M. Peak Hour trip ends on the property.
B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with
the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project.
Utility plans will be submitted as part of subsequent levels of review.
2
F111u12=013
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to
prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject
property and adjacent properties.
Grading and erosion control information will be submitted as part of subsequent levels of review.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The application materials state the project will generate 428 P.M. Peak Hour trip ends on the property.
The Board will review and evaluate the Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant at future stages of
the development review process.
(A)(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the
site.
The applicant has submitted an email from Julie Foley, District Wetlands Ecologist, dated February 24,
2015 stating that the wetland shown on project plans as "Wetland E" is a Class II wetland body and the
other two (2) wetland areas, "Wetland F" and "Wetland G," are Class III wetlands. The applicant
proposes a 50 foot buffer around Wetland E in conformance with State law and the LDRs. The applicant
also provided a letter from Errol Briggs, Gilman & Briggs Environmental, dated February 27, 2015 stating
that there are no rare, threatened, or endangered plants that will be impacted by this project.
The applicant is requesting that the proposed project be allowed to encroach on the Class III wetland
buffers and the Class III wetlands (Wetlands F & G). According to Section 12.02(E)(3) this encroachment
may be permitted by the DRB if the project's overall development, erosion control, stormwater
treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards
for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood
waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in
the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
In submitted materials, the applicant has asserted that the onsite stormwater infrastructure that results
from the project will ensure that the property does carry and store flood waters adequately and the
stormwater system will meet state requirements for handling sedimentation. Finally the applicant
asserts that since the District Wetlands Ecologist found Wetlands F & G to be Class III, that those
wetlands are of no particular importance to the functioning of the site. The Board finds that
encroachment in the Class III wetlands is acceptable.
#M P-16-03
(A)(5) 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 districts) in which
it is located.
The project is located in the City's Northwest Quadrant. The applicant has indicated there will be a
combination of housing styles, including single, two-family, and multi -family units as well as commercial
space. The area along Kennedy Drive is primarily multi -family housing, but a variety of housing exists
throughout the Northwest Quadrant. The Board finds that the combination of housing proposed by the
applicant is compatible with the neighboring areas.
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The project's layout includes open space easements that connect to areas to the east of project area and
the applicant has indicated this was done to allow for the possibility of future pedestrian connections to
other neighborhoods and open space. At the level of review available during Master Plan, the Board finds
the project meets this criterion.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to
ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
The Fire Department will review plans during preliminary and final plat stages of review.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services
and infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
At the level of review of the Master Plan, the Board finds that all the infrastructure and services proposed
for this project have been designed in this manner.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that
is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type
of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
At the level of review of the Master Plan, the Board finds that all the infrastructure and services proposed
for this project have been designed in this manner.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A concern in the Northwest Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the "spotty" presence of
neighborhood parks and open space. The applicant has proposed a formal park space as well as mostly
undeveloped (except for walking paths) open space areas. At the level of review available during Master
Plan, the Board finds the project meets this criterion. This criterion will be reviewed in greater detail at
subsequent levels of review.
4
#MP-16-03
C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD requires
site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the
following general review standards for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land
use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
As discussed above, the Board finds that these standards are met at the Master Plan level.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
(2) Parking
At the Master Plan level of review, the Board finds that this project can allow for and provide desirable
transitions from structure to site and from structure to structure, as well as adequate planting, safe
pedestrian movement, and sufficient parking. These standards will be evaluated in greater detail at later
stages of the review process.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated
adjoining buildings.
The applicant has requested a height waiver in Zones 2A and 213 where the applicant has indicated larger
multi -family residential buildings could be located along with the 45,000 square feet of commercial space.
The Board finds that it is supportive of increased height in those zones; however, the Board also finds that it
cannot grant a specific height waiver at this time, because the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) have
not been met. The request can be evaluated in greater detail at later stages of the review process.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Utility plans will be submitted as part of applications for subsequent levels of review.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
At the Master Plan level, the Board finds that this project can comply with this criterion. The Board will
#MP-16-03
consider consistency with these criteria in more detail during subsequent levels of review of the application.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications must meet the following specific
standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land maybe required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
The project's layout includes open space easements that connect to areas to the east of project area and
the applicant has indicated this was done to allow for the possibility of future pedestrian connections to
other neighborhoods and open space. The Board finds that these easements support general access and
circulation in the area.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to
have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and
service modifications must be underground.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The Board will consider compliance with these standards at subsequent levels of review.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening is required
for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The Board will consider compliance with these
criteria during subsequent levels of review.
At the Master Plan level of review the applicant has requested a finding directly related to landscaping. The
request is to find that the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses could be used to meet the landscaping
budget minimums (outlined in Section 13.06) of future projects which are made pursuant to the Master
Plan. The Board finds that the costs of ornamental grasses and perennials could be used to meet the
landscaping budget minimums of future projects which are made pursuant to the Master Plan.
E. Modification of Standards
The applicant is not requesting any modifications to the standards outlined in Section 14.07(A-D) at this
time.
F. Low Impact Development
This criterion will be reviewed at subsequent levels of review.
#M P-16-03
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
Compliance with these criteria will be reviewed at subsequent levels of review.
G. WAIVERS
The applicant has requested a number of waivers.
1. To waive sketch plan review on applications made pursuant to the Master Plan.
Sketch Plan review is largely for the benefit of the applicant to receive feedback from staff and the
Board prior to investing the additional resources needed to prepare preliminary and final plat
applications. If the applicant wishes to forgo this step in the process then the Board supports that
request and grants this request.
2. To waive the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1) within the project area.
Section 3.06(I)(1) requires that where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within 50 feet of the
boundary of a residential district that the required rear or side setback be increased to 65 feet and
include a strip at least 15 feet wide of dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen.
The Board finds that it would be counterproductive to require this increase in separation in what is
supposed to be a unified development. The Board grants this request.
3. To waive the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5)
Section 15.12(M)(5) states "Permanent pedestrian easements, twenty (20) feet in width, may be
required through blocks six hundred (600) feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul-de-sacs, or
in conjunction with utility easements in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision
or PUD or access to adjoining neighborhoods and public property or community focal points such as
parks, schools, and other public property, shopping centers, centers of employment, and community
recreation facilities, etc." The Board notes that the applicant has proposed a network of paths and
sidewalks throughout the project area, which will facilitate pedestrian connectivity. The Board grants
the request to waive the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) with the stipulation that the off -road
pedestrian paths shown in the plans are constructed during the first phase of project development.
4. To waive front yard setback requirements, so that there will be a
a. Six (6) foot front setback on Street B
b. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A and 11 foot front setback for garages on
Street A
c. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E and 11 % foot front setback for garages
on Street E
d. Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on
residential streets (which are not required to be shown on the Master Plan) in Zone 1
The Board supports the concept of smaller setbacks than what is currently required in the Land
Development Regulations in the Residential 12 Zoning District. The Board is concerned about the
possibility of such small setbacks potentially causing parking in the right-of-way, which would primarily
rl
#M P-16-03
be an issue in the single and two-family housing areas, and considers that details about housing units
and street design should be known before making a decision regarding whether parking in the ROW is
acceptable. The Board finds that buildings equal to or greater than five (5) stories in height are most
likely to have parking in lots, rather than driveways like single and two-family houses, and therefore the
issue of parking in the ROW is less likely. With this finding in mind, the Board grants a waiver for
buildings equal to or greater than five (5) stories in height to have six (6) foot front setbacks. The Board
also grants a waiver for buildings less than five (5) stories in height to have front setbacks of 20 feet.
H. OTHER ISSUES AND FINDINGS
Project phasing is typically a component of a Master Plan application. The applicant has indicated the
first preliminary plat application submitted pursuant to this Master Plan will cover the entire Master
Plan area. The Board finds that phasing of the development of the overall project can be addressed at
the preliminary plat stage, so long as the preliminary plat is for the entire area of the Master Plan.
The applicant has requested a number of findings.
1. To find that zoning district boundary lines within the project can be moved up to 50 feet
The Board supports the concept of allowing for the adjusting of zoning district boundaries as detailed in
Section 15.03(C). Requests to adjust zoning district boundaries can be part of future PUD and
subdivision applications made pursuant to this Master Plan.
2. To find that site plan review only (rather than PUD review) is necessary for single structures on
single lots and associated parking areas on separate lots.
The Board finds that only site plan review will be required when a development review application is for
a single structure on a single lot with associated parking areas on separate lots.
3. To find that preliminary plat review is not required when requesting an amendment to an
already approved final plat.
One of the benefits for the applicant of preliminary plat review is receiving feedback from staff and the
Board prior to investing the additional resources needed to prepare a final plat application. If the
applicant wishes to forgo this step in the process then the Board supports that request and finds that
preliminary plat review is not required when requesting an amendment to an already approved final
plat.
To find that a table of coverage limitations by zone presented by the applicant is acceptable and
that the overall coverage for the Master Plan area will not exceed the maximum coverages
allowed in each zoning district within the Master Plan area as identified in the "Approval and
Amendment of Master Plan" section of this decision.
The applicant presented the table below (Table 1) to the Board:
Table 1
Zone
Acreage
Coverage
Zone 1
7.1
50%
Zone 2A
7.3
85%
Zone 2B
3.4
90%
Zone 3
4.4
65%
Zone 4
4.1
25%
Zone 5
5
25%
Zone 6
8
60%
Totals:
39.3
# M P-16-03
The Board finds that the table of coverage limitations below (Table 2) is acceptable and that the overall
coverage for the Master Plan area will not exceed the maximum coverages allowed in each zoning
district within the Master Plan area as identified in the "Approval and Amendment of Master Plan"
section of this decision.
Table 2
Zone
Acreage
Type of Units
Coverage
Zone 1
7.1
Single Family
50%
Detached
Zone 2A
7.3
Apartment/
85%
Commercial
Zone 2B
3.4
Apartment
90%
Zone 3
4.4
Townhome in duplex
65%
form
Zone 4
4.1
N/A (open space,
25%
park, and open space
easement)
Zone 5
5
N/A (open space and
25%
stormwater
management)
Zone 6
8
Townhome in duplex
60%
form and Single
Family Detached
Totals:
39.3
To find the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and two-family houses
within the Master Plan area be allowed by Zoning Permit for any houses located on footprint
lots.
The Board finds that the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and two-family
houses within footprint lots is allowed by Zoning Permit and does not require the amendment of plat
plans.
6. To find the pedestrian circulation pattern, street layout, and open space are acceptable.
#MP-16-03
The Board finds the pedestrian circulation pattern, street layout, and open space as proposed at Master
Plan level is acceptable. The Board also finds that the phasing of the development of the park area will
be determined during preliminary plat review.
DECISION
Motion by Matt Cota, seconded by John Wilking, to approve Master Plan application #MP-16-03 of
O'Brien Farm Road, LLC, subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.
2. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services,
and service modifications must be underground.
3. The Board approves the following waivers:
a. Sketch plan review will not be a requirement for applications made pursuant to this
Master Plan.
b. Section 3.06(I) (1) of the Land Development Regulations will not apply to the Master
Plan area.
c. If off -road pedestrian paths are developed during the first phase of project construction
then the requirements of Section 15.12(M) (5) will not applicable within the Master Plan
area.
Buildings equal to or greater than five (5) stories in height may have six (6) foot front
setbacks and buildings less than five (5) stories in height may have front setbacks of 20
feet.
4. The Board makes the following findings:
a. That only site plan review will be required when a development review application is for
a single structure on a single lot with associated parking areas on separate lots.
b. That preliminary plat review is not required when requesting an amendment to an
already approved final plat.
c. That the table of coverage limitations (noted as Table 2 in this decision) is acceptable
and that the overall coverage for the Master Plan area will not exceed the maximum
coverages allowed in each zoning district within the Master Plan area as identified in the
"Approval and Amendment of Master Plan" section of this decision.
d. That the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and two-family
houses within footprint lots is allowed by Zoning Permit and does not require the
amendment of plat plans.
e. That the pedestrian circulation pattern, street layout, and open space as proposed at
Master Plan level is acceptable.
f. That the phasing of the development of the park area will be determined during
preliminary plat review.
5. Any changes to the Master Plan pertaining to Section 15.07(D) (3) of the Land Development
Regulations will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board.
10
#M P-16-03
6. The Preliminary Plat to follow this Master Plan must include the entire area of this application.
Mark Behr
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Matt Cota
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Frank Kochman
Yea
Nav
Abstain
Not Present
Bill Miller
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
David Parsons
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Jennifer Smith
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
John Wilking
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 6— 1— 0.
Signed this 9 day of February 2017, by
Bill Miller, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
11