HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-20-16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP
1
1 of 13
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP_2020‐07‐
21B.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 15, 2020
Plans received: April 7, 2020
255 Kennedy Drive
Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐20‐16
Meeting date: July 21, 2020
Owner/Applicant
O’Brien Farm Road, LLC
1855 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.
164 Main Street
Colchester VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0970‐00255
Residential 12, Commercial 1‐LR, and Residential 1‐PRD Zoning Districts
Traffic Overlay District T‐1 and T3, Transit Overlay District
39.16 acres
Location Map
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
2
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Continued preliminary plat application #SD‐20‐16 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a
previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sf of office space. The
phase consists of six (6) multi‐family residential buildings with a total of 342 dwelling units, of which 48
are proposed inclusionary units, and an additional offset of 48 market rate units, for a total of 390
dwelling units and underground parking, and 3,500 sf of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received master plan approval in 2016 (#MP‐16‐03). Staff considers the proposed project
does not trigger any of the criterion for master plan amendment.
The Board reviewed sketch plan application #SD‐18‐34 for this project on February 5, 2019, and held
hearings on this preliminary plat application on May 19 and July 7, 2020. At those hearings, the Board
reviewed zoning district standards, dimensional standards, planned unit development standards, site
plan standards for the site as a while, and site plan standards for Lots 14, 15 and 17. The Board then
continued the hearing to review site plan review standards for Lots 10 – 13 and other miscellaneous
standards applicable to this application.
CONTEXT
The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1‐LR, and Residential 1‐PRD Zoning Districts. The
project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts T‐1 and T‐2 as well as the Traffic Overlay District. The portion
of the property that is the subject of this application crosses all three zoning districts though the
majority is in the Residential 12 district. The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site
plan standards, and the standards of the applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses.
The Project has received master plan approval for the overall Project’s wetland impacts, pedestrian
access to abutting properties, and pedestrian circulation, street layout, and open space. No changes are
proposed to these approved elements therefore this sketch plan review omits discussion of them.
The prior phase approved 118 units in single family and two family homes. This application includes 390
units, for a total of 508 units. This application also includes 3,500 square feet of office space located in
one of the multifamily buildings.
This phase of the project, submitted on April 7th, is subject to Inclusionary Zoning Regulations adopted
by Council on July 6, 2020. The Inclusionary Zoning requirements apply to site plans and preliminary or
final plats submitted following public notice of the amendments. Where the Inclusionary Zoning
requirements allow for an “offset” of additional market rate units to compensate for the costs of
providing inclusionary units, these offset units may exceed the total number of dwelling units in an
approved Master Plan without triggering an amendment to the Master Plan
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on April 7, 2020 and offer the following comments.
Comments already reviewed on May 19 and July 7, 2020 are omitted except where there is an update,
but still apply. With consideration for this being a very large project, comments are provided for Lots
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
3
3 of 13
10, 11, 12 and 13, being the lots at the major four‐way intersection within the development. These
notes complete the first round of staff comments for this project.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks
The master plan approved a front setback waiver to 6 feet for building greater than or equal to five stories
and 20 feet for buildings less than five stories. No waiver was granted for side setbacks (10 ft in the R12 and
C1‐LR) or rear setbacks (30 ft in the R12 and C1‐LR). All involved parcels have two fronts and two sides, with
the exception of Lot 10 which has three fronts and one side.
Based on calculations provided by the applicant, the 6‐foot front setback applies to the buildings on lots 10‐
13.
The applicant has provided an exhibit showing the provided setbacks for all proposed buildings. The
buildings on lots 10‐13 meet the required setbacks.
Heights
As discussed on May 19, the applicant is requesting a height waiver for each of the buildings from 35 ft for
flat roofs to heights between 52 and 69 feet above average preconstruction grade. These staff comments
address each of the proposed buildings, and a discussion of height is included in for each. Specific height
waiver requests are discussed on a lot by lot basis under site plan review criteria 14.06B(1) below.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Site plan review standards are addressed for each Lot.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan was discussed on May 19.
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.
Overall
1. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the amount of façade dedicated to usable inside
space is sufficient. While Staff recognizes the need for parking, the facades should not rely
entirely on the “illusion” of active space but should instead include spaces such as a lobby area,
gym, marker space, lounge, or other amenities chosen by the applicant to increase the
marketability of the buildings. The applicant indicated on July 7 that they would take such
spaces into consideration, but Staff recommends the Board specifically require the applicant to
consider such spaces with respect to the street‐facing building facades.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
4
4 of 13
Lot 10
The building on Lot 10 is proposed to have four habitable stories and one parking story. The
parking story represents the majority of the street‐facing façade on O’Brien Farm Road, with
two entry doors on the end nearest Two Brothers Drive representing approximately 20% of the
façade. Turning right onto Two Brothers Drive there is a corner entry tower with two groups of
three storefront windows comprising approximately 40% of the facade before the building
transitions back into parking as grade slopes up. Turning right again to continue on Two
Brothers Drive the parking story is below grade and the street‐facing façade is made up of
windows to individual units. Some windows have shallow balconies. This façade is lower than
Two Brothers drive by 8‐feet and is separated from the road right of way by 77 feet, inclusive of
a double‐loaded parking area. The only pedestrian building entrance is on O’Brien Farm Road.
There are 44 units proposed in the building, and 33 garage parking spaces, with 29 parking
spaces to the rear of the building. Access to solid waste disposal is either through the garage
doors, which do not include dedicated pedestrian facilities, or via a sidewalk from the entry
tower to the far corner of the building.
Finally, Staff notes that the building does not appear to contain any amenities or shared spaces
for residents. See discussion above. Staff considers the placement of building and parking areas
on the lot to be appropriate.
2. Staff considers the general configuration of this building with garages at street level does not
foster a sense of community, especially considered in the context of the adjacent two‐family
homes and the stated objective to have the 4‐way intersection a focal point to the neighborhood.
With acknowledgement of the project’s location on a site with significant topographic
constraints, Staff recommends the Board require the northwest and northeast facades to be
modified to provide additional active space within the building, beyond the approximately 140 sf
lobby, and where appropriate to supplement with façade, streetscape, and other improvements
to make this an attractive, active space. The latter can be done through a variety of means,
including false windows, architectural details, commissioned artwork, or creative use of the
space between the sidewalk and building. Staff considers that a densely planted buffer between
the street and the building would detract from a neighborhood feel and instead recommends the
Board require the applicant to pursue architectural enhancements, with landscaping serving to
compliment rather than stand alone.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an interesting and engaging street
presence in order to approve the requested height waiver from 35 feet to 54.5 ft.
Lot 11
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
5
5 of 13
The building on Lot 11 is proposed to have four habitable stories and one parking story. The
northwest elevation, fronting on O’Brien Farm Road, is made up of parking story for roughly
80% of it’s length, with two entry doors near the end nearest Two Brothers Drive. Turning the
corner to the southwest elevation on Two Brothers Drive, the street level façade is made up of
40% entry tower and 60% parking story. The upper story architecture is the same as the
building on Lot 10. the lower parking story is zero to six feet higher than the adjoining roadway.
There is a proposed sidewalk along both street facing facades, as well as along the long façade
which faces the parking on the lot. The parking garage entrance is located on the northeast end
of the building.
Finally, Staff notes that the building does not appear to contain any amenities or shared spaces
for residents. See discussion above.
Staff considers the placement of the building and parking areas on the lot to be appropriate.
4. Staff considers the general configuration of this building with garages at street level does not
foster a sense of community. Staff recommends the Board require the northwest and southwest
facades to be modified as discussed for Lot 10, above.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an interesting and engaging street
presence in order to approve the requested height waiver from 35 feet to 55.2 feet.
Lot 12
The building on Lot 12 is proposed to have four habitable stories and one parking story. This
building is proposed to contain all inclusionary housing units for this phase of the development
(47 to 48 units, or the equivalent taking into consideration additional statutory credit for units
with greater than two bedrooms).
6. On July 7, the applicant testified that the building may contain up to 4 market rate units, and
offered to provide a written explanation of the proposed unit breakdown and how it meets the
newly‐adopted inclusionary zoning regulations. Staff recommends the Board continue the
hearing for the purpose of reviewing this document when provided.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
6
6 of 13
The northeast elevation, fronting on Two Brothers Drive, is made up of parking story for roughly
50% of it’s length, with the grade rising to the first habitable level at the eastern end of the
façade. The eastern end of the façade has two doors, including the entry tower. Turning the
corner onto O’Brien Farm Road, the façade consists of the entry tower and windows to units.
There appears to be a sidewalk between the building and the street on the O’Brien Farm Road
façade, in addition to the recreation path along O’Brien Farm Road. Parking is located to the
southwest and is accessed via O’Brien Farm Road.
7. To a lesser degree than Lots 10 and 11, but still relevant, Staff recommends the Board require
the northeast façade to be modified to either provide active space or to promote the illusion of
active space.
Finally, Staff notes that the building does not appear to contain any amenities or shared spaces
for residents. See discussion above.
Lot 13
The building on Lot 13 is proposed to have four habitable stories and one parking story, and
contain 118 units. The parking story includes approximately 20% of it’s area as active space in
the form of a leasing office, dog salon, “speed shop,” and bike storage room.
The parking garage entrance is proposed to be located near the rear of the site in what Staff
considers the be an appropriate location.
The façade along O’Brien Farm Road is proposed to consist of residential units above a halfway
exposed parking story. The first floor elevation is proposed to be 2 feet above to 6 feet below
the adjacent roadway.
8. As one of the very few places in the development where there is living space at street level, Staff
recommends the Board require at least some of the first‐floor units to have entry doors to foster
a sense of community. Staff considers concerns about security should not be significant in the
context of the adjoining single family and duplex neighborhood.
9. Staff recommends the Board review the southwest elevation along Two Brothers Drive. This
elevation consists of an entry tower at the west corner, and then grade drops away to the
leasing office. The space in between consists of openings into the parking garage and nearly 10
vertical feet of blank wall. The building is located more than 20 feet from the back of sidewalk
along this blank wall. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a visual or
functional transition along this façade.
The first floor of this building consists of 24 residential units, a “community space,” an
unidentified amenity space, a second leasing office, and a lobby. Upper stories are fully
programmed with residential units. The outdoor portion of the U‐shaped building was originally
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
7
7 of 13
proposed to contain a lounge, games area, BBQ pavilion and pool. The applicant provided the
following statement regarding the pool on July 9, 2020:
As this process has evolved, it seems as though a pool of the size and type originally
planned would not be sufficient for the potential demand. With the pools location,
constructed on a roof‐top over a small available space below, we are unable to size a
pool for the potential need. Given this, the pool will no longer be proposed, and is being
removed from the project plans. The rooftop deck located on lot 13 will be outfitted with
amenities that are similar with those outlined in our presentation last night, and which
are located throughout the planned project on all of the lots. The details of this proposal
will be provided prior to the September hearing, but I would anticipate seating areas,
planters, barbeques, etc., in line with what we have already shown.
10. Staff recommends that that Board review the proposed updates to this exterior space at the
continued hearing meeting.
11. Staff further recommends the Board discuss the applicant’s plans for interior or upper‐story
amenities, for the Lot 13 building and for all buildings. With the exception of a small interior
lounge on Lot 15, Lot 13 appears to be the only site for resident recreational amenities.
(2) Parking
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
(b) – (c) Not applicable
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of
the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic.
Lot 10: Lot 10 is a through‐lot and is bordered on three sides by streets. Staff considers the
proposed parking layout allowable. Appearance of the proposed parking is discussed under
14.06C(2) below.
Lot 11: Parking for Lot 11 meets this criterion.
Lot 16: There is a placholder curb cut to Lot 16 approximately 80 feet from the curb cut for Lot
11 on O’Brien Farm Road. The proposed driveway for Lot 11 appears to support a shared
driveway. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the additional curb cut
for Lot 16 from the plans. A shared curb cut is preferred, though Staff considers this may be
reconsidered at the time Lot 16 is proposed for development.
Lot 12: There are two parking spaces along O’Brien Farm Road which do not meet the
requirement that parking spaces be located to the rear of the building. Removal of these two
disallowed parking spaces would result in the creation of a relatively significant undeveloped
space.
12. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to consider how this space may be used
prior to closing the hearing.
Lot 13: Staff notes there appear to be several parking spaces on Lot 17, discussed on July 7,
which extend beyond the front of the building on Lot 13.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
8
8 of 13
13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove those spaces and direct the
applicant to consider how this space may be used prior to closing the hearing.
14. There was some discussion as part of Phase 1 of the master plan that this parking area could
serve as overflow or guest parking for the single and two family homes. Staff recommends
the Board discuss with the applicant whether that is still the case.
Parking Dimensions
Lot 10 ‐ 13: Perpendicular parking spaces are required to be 9‐ft wide by 18‐ft long with a
24‐foot drive aisle. The applicant has indicated the garage spaces will be compact spaces,
but has not indicated the proposed dimensions. The Board has the authority to approve
minor modifications to parking lot dimensions where the applicant can demonstrate
necessity of modifications and where safety of the motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation
are retained. Historically, the Board has exercised this authority to allow minor reductions
of 1‐2 feet in either width or length of spaces, or width of drive aisles, but not all three.
On July 7, the applicant represented that the compact spaces in the building on Lot 14 are
proposed to be 18’x8’.
15. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide dimensions of the proposed
compact spaces on Lots 10 ‐ 13, and describe how compact parking will be enforced. Staff
further recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate necessity of the
modifications, in lieu of slightly expanding the building to allow minimum standards to be
met.
(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.
See discussion of heights under 14.06B(1) above.
Lot 10:
16. This lot includes two proposed retaining walls. Retaining walls are required to be set back 5‐
feet from all lot lines (see 13.25). Staff considers this criterion does not appear to be met
and recommends the Board require the applicant to amend their plan to meet this
requirement at the next stage of review.
Lot 13: The building on Lot 13 is proposed to have 118 units, while other buildings at the Two
Brothers Drive / O’Brien Farm Road are proposed to have 44 to 48 units. The first floor
elevation of the building is between the first floor elevation of the buildings on Lot 12 and 11,
it’s nearest neighbors. The façade along Two Brothers Drive is shorter than that of the adjacent
building on Lot 12, while the façade along O’Brien Farm Road is approximately 1.25 times as
long as the façade of the adjacent building on Lot 11. Staff considers this criterion met.
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.
All buildings are proposed to have the same architectural style. Staff considers this criterion
met.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
9
9 of 13
(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.
See discussion of buildings under 14.06B(1) above.
17. Lot 10: Lot 10 is a through lot and parking is located between the building and the street.
This parking configuration is allowable, but Staff considers that the Board should require the
applicant to provide appropriate screening to reduce the impact of this parking from the
street and sidewalk.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
Lot 10: Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
Lot 11: as discussed above pertaining to Lot 16, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide a cross lot easement between Lots 11 and 16.
Lot 12: Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
Lot 13: The applicant has concurrently applied for master plan amendment MP‐20‐01 to modify the
boundary of Lot 13 to allow for the construction of the proposed accessory structure. The applicant is
proposing to locate a significant amount of parking for Lot 13 on the adjacent Lot 17. The 21‐space
parking lot on Lot 17 was discussed on July 7.
18. The applicant is also proposing additional spaces on a lot which is divided between Lot 13 and Lot 17.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to explain why this parking area was not included the
proposed area for Lot 13 in MP‐20‐01, and consider whether to require the applicant to modify the
subdivision to incorporate this proposed lot.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Utility connections are proposed to be underground throughout this phase. Staff considers this criterion
met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
Lot 10: Access to solid waste disposal is either through the garage doors, which do not include
dedicated pedestrian facilities, or via a sidewalk from the entry tower to the far corner of the building.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
10
10 of 13
19. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant enhancing the access to the solid waste disposal
area at the next stage of review. Staff considers the specific requirements of this criterion are met.
Lot 11: To a lesser degree than Lot 10, access to the solid waste disposal area is not served by a
sidewalk. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to enhance access to this area at the next
stage of review.
Lot 12: Staff considers this criterion met.
20. Lot 13: The applicant’s narrative notes that the use of the proposed mail and trash/recycling building is
as of yet undetermined. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to solidify the proposed use of
this building prior to closing the hearing. If it is not proposed to be used for trash/recycling, Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate where trash for Lot 13 will be handled.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
The applicant estimates building cost to be approximately $66,000,000, resulting in a required minimum
landscaping value of approximately $667,500. The applicant has not yet prepared a detailed
landscaping plan, therefore this discussion is based on the provided general landscaping concept plans.
As discussed on July 7, the applicant must provide full landscaping plans, including civic spaces and open
spaces, at the next stage of review.
Lot 10:
Conceptual landscaping plans show otherwise unused areas planted with dense vegetation throughout
the lot with the exception of a strip between the roadway and the building on Two Brothers Drive.
21. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to expand the useable green space in this area by
providing strategically placed shade trees in lieu of dense hedges.
There is also a small unprogrammed area near the eastern corner of this lot that the applicant has
designated as snow storage.
22. Staff considers this area may not be feasible to plant because of sight distances, and considers that if the
applicant provides sufficient small on‐site open space elsewhere that no additional enhancement is
needed in this area.
Lot 11:
23. The applicant has generally provided a mixture of densely planted wooded areas and lawn areas around
the building on Lot 11. There is a relatively flat area along O’Brien Farm Road at the north end of the
building that Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider enhancing as a small outdoor
space at the next stage of review.
Lot 12:
24. The area the applicant has conceptually proposed to remain lawn is immediately adjacent to the parking
garage on Two Brothers Drive. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider providing
lawn or seating areas in more aesthetic areas of the lot at the next stage of review, including along O’Brien
Farm Road where there are currently proposed two disallowed parking spaces, as discussed above.
Lot 13:
Staff considers the general landscaping concept for this lot appears appropriate, though more detail is
required at the next stage of review.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
11
11 of 13
Section 13.06B of the Land Development Regulations addresses landscaping of parking areas as follows.
(1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow
for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking
lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy
for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and
for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between
the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
Lot 10: Though the surface parking is proposed to be located in an allowable area, Staff considers
this criterion particularly important for the portion of the lot fronting on Two Brothers Drive. The
parking lot is located approximately eight (8) feet below the adjoining roadway.
25. Staff recommends the Board require to take the change in elevation into consideration when
considering plans for this buffer.
Lots 11 ‐ 13: Staff considers the conceptual landscaping plan appears to support compliance with
this criterion, with removal of disallowed parking spaces discussed above. Staff recommends the
Board review this criterion in more detail at final plat.
(2) In parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in
parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior
of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking.
All lots: It was discussed on July 7 that the Board will require the applicant to meet this criterion
on a lot by lot basis rather than overall, and to demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the
next stage of review.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as
a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side,
and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are
encouraged.
Staff considers this criterion appears to be preliminarily met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or
salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly
throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum
of thirty (30) feet apart.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
12
12 of 13
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species
should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking
lot and the site.
(e) N/A
All lots: A detailed landscaping plan is required at final plat. Staff recommends the Board review
these criteria at that stage.
(5) Planting Islands
(a) Curbed planting islands shall be designed and arranged to define major circulation
aisles, entrances and exits, provide vegetative focal points, provide shade and canopy, and
break up large expanses of asphalt pavement. All islands shall be planted with trees, shrubs,
grasses and ground covers. Plant materials judged to be inappropriate by the Development
Review Board will not be approved.
(b) Curbs of such islands shall be constructed of concrete or stone and shall be designed to
facilitate surface drainage and prevent vehicles from overlapping sidewalks and damaging the
plants. Sections of drop curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from
the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection and management infrastructure.
(c) Islands are strongly encouraged to be graded and planted to serve as collection and
treatment areas for stormwater management. It is recommended that sections of drop curb
no greater than five feet in length be installed to allow stormwater to flow off the paved
parking lot and onto the island for treatment. At the DRB’s discretion, curbless parking areas
and planting islands may be allowed where these are specifically designed for stormwater
management. However, ends and corners of such areas must be protected with curbing to
prevent cars from driving over or parking on planted areas.
All Lots: Staff recommends the Board consider these criteria at final plat.
(6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for
erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
26. Lot 10: The applicant has proposed snow storage areas at the perimeter of the surface lot, including
between the surface lot and the proposed recreation path. Given the topography adjacent to the
recreation path, Staff considers excessive snow storage may result in icy conditions on the path, and
recommends the Board remove this location as a designated snow storage area. Staff considers minor
snow accumulation from plowing of the sidewalk is less likely to create hazardous conditions.
Lot 11 ‐ 13: Staff recommends the Board revisit this criterion when landscaping and open spaces are
fully designed. Currently proposed snow storage areas may be designed with landscaping which does
not support storage of snow.
27. Many snow storage areas are in areas also considered for useable open spaces. Staff recommends
the Board provide preliminary feedback on whether they consider that snow storage can be coincident
with useable open spaces.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review
Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
13
13 of 13
less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land
development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing
condition exceeds the applicable limit.
The applicant’s requested waivers, beyond those which were issued at the master plan level, are
discussed elsewhere in this document.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is
required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
Stormwater management was discussed by the Board on May 19.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
This criterion was discussed on July 7. One discussed element was the potential for replacement of one
sidewalk along the segment of Two Brothers Drive between O’Brien Farm Road and Kennedy Drive with
a recreation path. Staff considers that this segment would make a natural recreation path connector. It
will be served by a signalized intersection at Kennedy Drive and therefore connect the entire
neighborhood directly to the Kennedy Drive path. While the Eldridge St connection is a good one, it is an
unsignalized intersection and the Kennedy Drive path is on the opposite side of the street. Eldridge
Street is also over 1,100 feet away from this new intersection. The Two Brothers connection would also
serve the existing homes and businesses that live downhill of Eldridge Drive, and allow them to avoid a
significant uphill to get to Eldridge.
28. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to replace one of the proposed
sidewalks with a recreation path.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Board and Staff to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner