HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SD-20-16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP
1
1 of 16
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP_2020‐07‐07.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 26, 2020
Plans received: April 7, 2020
255 Kennedy Drive
Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐20‐16
Meeting date: July 7, 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 16
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.
The above project description differs from the originally warned project description because of a
misunderstanding about the proposed inclusionary units. The revised project description has been
rewarned in accordance with state law and Staff considers the hearing may proceed.
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 the
first hearing on this preliminary plat application on May 19, 2020. At that hearing, the Board reviewed
zoning district standards, dimensional standards, and planned unit development standards. The Board
then continued the hearing to review site plan review standards 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.
As discussed below, this phase of the project, submitted on April 7th, is subject to draft Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations in effect pending Council action. 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.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
3
3 of 16
Comments already reviewed on May 19, 2020 are omitted except where there is an update, but still
apply. With consideration for this being a very large project, Staff has provided herein comments are
provided for the general site plan, and for Lots 14, 15 and 17. Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, being the lots at
the major four‐way intersection within the development, are proposed to be reviewed at a continued
hearing.
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.
The applicant has stated in their cover letter that five buildings will have four habitable stories, and one
level of subsurface, or partially subsurface, parking. The building on Lot 14 will have three habitable stories
and one level of subsurface parking. The definition of “story” defines a parking level as a story if the level
above is an average of 4‐feet above average preconstruction grade or the parking level is exposed more
than 12 feet at any point. Based on calculations provided by the applicant, the 6‐foot front setback applies
to the buildings on lots 10‐13 and lot 15, while a 20 foot front setback applies to the building on lot 14.
The applicant has provided an exhibit showing the provided setbacks for all proposed buildings. The
buildings on lots 10‐13 meet the required setbacks. The building on Lot 14 is set back 10.8 feet from Two
Brothers Drive, and would require a waiver of the required 20‐foot minimum setback.
1. Based on the previous decision, Staff considers that the intention was to allow a 6‐foot setback for the
large multifamily buildings within the master plan, and a 20‐foot setback for the smaller single family
and duplex buildings, as well as for any commercial buildings. Staff recommends the Board allow the
proposed setback on Lot 14.
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.
2. As noted on May 19, Staff recommends the Board consider the height of individual buildings, but also
consider whether the applicant has compensated for the requested height waiver by providing high
quality, varied and complimentary architecture for all buildings and landscaping when determining
whether they will preliminarily grant the applicant’s requested height waivers. Specific height waiver
requests are discussed on a lot by lot basis under site plan review criteria 14.06B(1) below.
B) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING
On May 19, the Board reviewed the applicant’s proposal to meet the inclusionary housing requirements of
the upcoming LDR amendments by providing 48 inclusionary units on Lot 12. The applicant offered to have
Champlain Housing Trust provide testimony on whether they consider the proposed distribution to be
consistent with the requirements of Section 18.01.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
4
4 of 16
3. Staff recommends the Board ask for testimony from Champlain Housing Trust at this preliminary plat
stage of review as the Board’s denial of the applicant’s proposal would require significant modification
to the proposed project.
City Council has warned amendment LDR‐19‐13A to the LDR to include requirements for inclusionary
housing (LDR‐19‐13A, warned in the Other Paper on March 26, 2020 for City Council hearing. Pursuant to
24 VSA 4449(d), applications must be heard under the proposed regulations pending Council consideration
and action. This application was submitted on April 7, 2020 therefore the inclusionary zoning requirements
apply. The City Council hearing is scheduled for July 6, 2020. Staff can provide an update to the Board on
the status of the amendment at the July 7 hearing.
C) 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.
All Lots
The applicant is proposing entry towers at all six buildings. The actual useable area for each
entry tower is extremely limited, and the provided architectural plans do not show any interior
common space either.
4. Staff considers this proposed configuration would not foster a sense of community, and
recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how to provide both a sense of identity for
individual buildings but also for the neighborhood as a whole. Entries should be designed to
facilitate connection to open spaces, a theme and variation approach should be employed for
building facades, and unconstructed spaces should be consolidated to the extent feasible to
create useable pockets of space within the development area.
Lot 14
The building on Lot 14 is proposed to have three habitable stories and one parking story. The
parking story represents the entire street‐facing façade on Kennedy Drive, while the façade
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
5
5 of 16
facing Two Brothers Drive is made up of half parking story and half entrance tower. Surface
parking is located to the side along the entrance drive. Only one exterior entrance is proposed
at the entrance tower, located at the building’s uphill corner on Two Brothers Drive. There are
33 units proposed in the building, with 33 garage parking spaces, and 12 spaces along the
entrance drive shared with the building on Lot 12. Staff notes the renderings incorrectly depict
unit at grade facing Kennedy Drive. The finished floor of the garage is proposed to be at
approximately the same elevation as Kennedy Drive, so Staff considers it will be fully visible
from that location if not screened or otherwise treated. The applicant’s cover letter discusses
an engaging street presence to Kennedy Drive. The architectural elevations show building
breaks along Kennedy Drive, but these building breaks do not appear present in the
architectural plans.
5. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they propose to provide an
engaging street presence along Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive, to include a discussion of
the appearance of the garage, screening, site lighting, and the external appearance of garage
lighting. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an interesting and
engaging presence along Kennedy Drive in order to consider approving the requested height
waiver from 35 feet to 52 ft.
6. The applicant’s landscaping concept indicates “meadow” in the location of the gravel wetland
between the building and Kennedy Drive. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to
describe what “meadow” means in the context of a gravel wetland.
7. Staff considers the parking entrance to this building well placed, but recommends the Board
discuss additional accommodations for pedestrians, either via a sidewalk along the garage
entrance or a separate entrance at that end of the building.
Lot 15
The building on Lot 15 is proposed to have four habitable stories and one parking story. The
parking story represents the majority of the street‐facing façade on Kenned Drive, while the
façade facing Two Brothers Drive is made up of an entry tower and parking garage entrance.
The first‐floor size of the entry tower is less than the size of one parking space. The garage
entrance and entry tower is approximately 4‐feet higher in elevation than the adjoining Two
Brothers Drive. In addition to the entry tower on Two Brothers Drive, pedestrian entrances are
proposed at the jog in the building on Kennedy Drive and from the adjoining surface lot. The
building is proposed to have 103 units, with 82 garage parking spaces and 97 parking spaces in
the lot shared with adjacent Lot 13. The architectural elevations show building breaks along
Kennedy Drive, but these building breaks do not appear present in the architectural plans.
8. Like for Lot 14, the applicant’s cover letter discusses an engaging street presence to Kennedy
Drive. A limited number of existing trees are proposed to be retained near the north most corner
of the Kennedy Drive façade. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how this
will be achieved along Kennedy Drive, including a discussion of the appearance of the garage,
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
6
6 of 16
screening, site lighting, and the external appearance of garage lighting. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to provide an interesting and engaging presence along Kennedy
Drive in order to consider approving the requested height waiver from 35 feet to 57 ft.
The City has rarely permitted an underground entry facing the main street. Staff has discussed
this concern with the applicant, who cited issues of grading as preventing the entry from being
located in the center or rear of building. The applicant was granted a waiver to locate this
building with a setback of 6 feet from the right of way. The current proposal locates the building
67 feet from the right of way.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they propose to provide a street
presence on Two Brothers Drive with the current configuration. As one of the two buildings
representing the gateway to the project, Staff considers an active street presence an important
design goal, and considers it should include elements of building and hardscape, rather than the
more suburban environment which would be achieved with a landscaped plaza.
Lot 17
The applicant is proposing development on Lot 17 to include 24,780 sf of driveway, parking and
sidewalk. This property is NOT part of the existing master plan (MP‐16‐03, as amended by MP‐
17‐01). At the sketch plan associated with the current proposal, SD‐18‐24, the applicant showed
some conceptual paving on Lot 17, with “continued” arrows at the edge of the pavement. At
that time, this property was not discussed. The applicant indicated they would be adjusting
property lines and seeking master plan amendment to incorporate additional areas needed for
the current proposal, and therefore it was seen as not an issue at that time. Now it has become
apparent that the applicant is proposing to expand the PUD outside the limits of the master
plan. The master plan review process is described in LDR 15.07, and does not appear to
preclude the applicant from proposing simultaneous development within and without the
master plan area, but Staff notes that the findings of the master plan approval do not apply to
Lot 17. Findings of the master plan approval pertain to roadway layout, wetland impacts, and
open space, and include setback waivers.
The applicant stated during the hearing for sketch plan application SD‐20‐10, which includes Lot
17, that the proposed site plan for Lot 17 is not yet conceived. Therefore Staff considers it would
be premature to restrict Lot 17 by allowing the proposed development to take place.
Staff considers parking lot landscaping criterion to be another reason the Board should not allow
the applicant to construct parking on Lot 17 without a fully developed site plan. Installation of
curbing will make it difficult to modify the layout in the future should the desired development
not be compatible with the current proposal.
10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant either installing a hammerhead
turnaround at the north end of Lot 15, or limiting the development on Lot 17 to an uncurbed
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
7
7 of 16
temporary driveway to allow temporary egress onto O’Brien Farm Road prior to development of
a site plan for Lot 17.
(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.
11. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant what, if any, parking is proposed to be
reserved.
All Lots: Parking minimum are addressed in 13.01. 0.75 spaces are required per dwelling
unit for studio and one bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for units with two
bedrooms and above. In addition, 0.75 spaces are required for every 4 units, as long as no
more than one parking spaces is reserved per dwelling unit. The purpose of the additional
0.75 spaces is to accommodate guest parking. Based on the provided table of dwelling
units, the applicant is required to provide 466 spaces. They have provided 320 covered
parking spaces, 263 spaces in surface lots, and 42 on‐street parking spaces, for a total of 625
spaces.
Required minimum spaces: 466
Provided garage spaces: 320
Provided surface spaces: 263 (includes 23 spaces on Lot 17)
Total provided off‐street spaces: 583
Provided on‐street spaces: 42
Total provided spaces: 625
12. The applicant may exceed the minimum requirements, but Staff recommends the Board
discuss whether the surplus parking detracts from the ability to provide other site features
such as plazas, accessory structures, or transitions between types of housing.
13. Lot 15: The applicant is proposing parking on Lot 15 between the building and the street,
though the parking is behind the front façade of the building on Lot 13. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to remove the first two parking spaces to comply with this
criterion.
Parking Dimensions
Lot 14: 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.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
8
8 of 16
14. The garage parking spaces on Lot 14 are designated as compact. Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to describe the proposed dimensions, the enforcement plan to
ensure only compact vehicles are parked there, and whether a slight modification to the
building could result in the construction of standard spaces.
15. Lot 15: Staff notes there appear to be two doors located in a parking space within the
garage parking. These doors are indicated to open inwards, leading staff to believe they
may be an error. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to correct these two doors
to meet building code and designate the area in front of them no parking at the next stage
of review.
(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.
All Lots:
On May 19, the Board entered into a general discussion of small on‐site open spaces. Staff
considers as one of the highest points in the development, there may be an opportunity for
upper‐level common spaces and recommends the Board discuss this possibility with the
applicant.
Lot 14:
The applicant is requesting a height waiver for the building on Lot 14 from 35 to 51.7 feet above
average preconstruction grade. The building is set back 60 feet from Kennedy Drive, and
Kennedy Drive is approximately level with the finished floor elevation of the parking garage.
Staff notes the provided renderings show apartments facing Kennedy Drive where in fact
parking garage is proposed. Required front setbacks from Two Brothers Drive and Kennedy
Drive for this four‐story building are 20 feet under the master plan approval, as discussed above.
In addition to the requested height waiver, the applicant is also requesting a waiver of the
setback on Two Brothers Drive from 20 feet to 10.8 feet.
West of the planned entry to Two Brothers Drive, Kennedy Drive is principally characterized by
mature wooded areas and, where visible, two‐story multi‐family buildings. The proposed four
story building (three residential floors above a garage) is proposed to be placed 60 feet from
Kennedy Drive with a gravel wetland in front.
16. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will provide an effective
transition to the more built/urban environment east of Two Brothers Drive in the context of the
requested height waiver.
17. In addition to the transition along Kennedy Drive, Staff recommends the Board require there to
be a substantial architectural gateway feature oriented towards the corner of Two Brothers
Drive on each of the buildings on Lot 14 and Lot 15.
Lot 15:
The applicant is requesting a height waiver for the building on Lot 15 from 35 ft to 56.55 feet
above average preconstruction grade. The building is set back 78 feet from Kennedy Drive and
Staff estimates the finished floor of the garage is approximately 10 feet above Kennedy Drive.
18. As a 103 unit building, Staff recommends the Board look closely at the architecture to break up
this large presence and otherwise ask the applicant to describe how the impact of this building
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
9
9 of 16
will be reduced from Kennedy Drive. As a comparison, the Olympiad and Bartlett Brook
Apartments are in the 60 unit range, as is the L‐shaped Champlain Housing Trust building on
Market Street.
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.
(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 under 14.06B(1) above.
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 14: Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
Lot 15: Lot 15 abuts the portion of the O’Brien property referred to as “Lot 17,” which is outside of the
currently approved master plan area and designated as Commercial 1 – Limited Retail zoning. The
proposed driveway, parking and sidewalk extends to the property line with Lot 17. Staff considers this
criterion met.
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 14: Solid waste disposal is near the rear of the site and is shared between Lots 12 and 14.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
10
10 of 16
19. As discussed elsewhere related to pedestrian connectivity, Staff recommends the Board direct the
applicant to provide a pedestrian connection from the garage entrance to the remainder of the site
at the next stage of review.
Lot 15: Solid waste disposal is proposed in an accessory structure shared with Lot 13. Though there are
sidewalks in the general vicinity of the solid waste disposal area, Staff notes they are not configured to
support the natural path that pedestrians will likely take.
20. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to take another look at pedestrian access to solid
waste disposal areas for this lot at the next stage of review.
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.
All Lots:
The applicant has provided an overall conceptual landscaping plan and conceptual landscaping plans for
the intersections of Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive, Two Brothers Drive and O’Brien Farm Road,
and the pool on Lot 13. Detailed landscaping plans are required at the final plat stage of review. As has
been previously discussed, this project has high residential density punctuated by areas of open space.
Landscaping within the developed areas should celebrate the urban environment rather than attempt to
screen it. Spaces should be designed to be useable rather than decorative.
21. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant ways to create coordinated spaces with
species that provide the feeling of access for all residents, not just for a single building.
22. Setbacks were waived down to 6 feet, while the applicant has proposed around 14‐foot setbacks in
most cases. Eight feet of additional setback along the entire length of the building creates a large
narrow space without much functionality. Staff recommends the Board discuss either bringing
buildings closer to the street or made more square with an equal amount of space become a parklet.
Lot 14:
The provided landscaping concept sheet shows a small lawn area near the main entrance to Lot 14, and
the sides of the building generally planted with dense vegetation. The parking lot does not appear to
meet minimum interior landscaping requirements. The plan of the Kennedy/Two Brothers intersection
designates “meadow” in the location of the gravel wetland between the building and Kennedy Drive.
Staff considers there should be a balance between landscaped areas and shaded open areas to allow for
small opportunities for outdoor enjoyment.
23. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe what “meadow” means in the context of a
gravel wetland. Will the gravel wetland be a place that is generally dry at the surface and useable,
or will it be off limits to foot traffic?
Lot 15:
The provided landscaping concept sheet shows a small lawn area, about the size of two units, between
the driveway and Two Brothers Drive, a slightly larger lawn area at the far side of the building, and
otherwise shows dense plantings around the perimeter of the proposed 103 unit building. The plan of
the Kennedy/Two Brothers intersection designates flowering trees, ornamental grasses and a dry laid
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
11
11 of 16
stone wall along the O’Brien Farm road and Kennedy Drive entrance. Taking into account proposed
topography and entrance locations, Staff considers Lot 15 has no real outside amenity.
24. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to create useable open green spaces around the
building by providing strategically placed shade trees in lieu of dense hedges.
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 14: The surface parking on Lot 14 is located relatively near to the street and it may be difficult
to meet this standard while maintaining sight distance both in and out of the driveway. Entering
cars need to be able to see if a car is pulling out of the first space, and exiting cars need to be able
to see oncoming traffic.
25. Staff recommends the Board bring this dichotomy to the applicant’s attention to be addressed at
the next stage of review.
26. Lot 15: Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this
criterion 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.
27. All lots: Staff recommends the Board 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.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
12
12 of 16
(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.
(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.
Lot 14: Snow storage is specified near a hammerhead near the garage entrance. Staff considers this
criterion met.
28. Lot 15: Staff notes there do not appear to be any designated snow storage areas, nor do there
appear to be any logical locations for snow storage. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to provide a snow storage or removal plan for the surface lot at the next stage of review.
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
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.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
13
13 of 16
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.
The roadway alignment was approved at the master plan level, though review of this criterion was
deferred to individual phases. 15.12 pertains to roadway geometry, cross section, and sidewalks. Staff
therefore considers the Board should closely review the proposed roadway cross sections and sidewalks
at this stage of review.
City standards require at least a 5‐foot grass strip between the roadway and the sidewalk (LDR 15.12M(2)),
which serves as a location for street trees as well as removed snow. The applicant is proposing to continue
the Phase 1 drive width through the project area, but is proposing the addition of parallel parking along
both sides of the roadway, is proposing to locate the sidewalk directly against the parallel parking, and is
proposing to widen the rec path and locate it directly against the parallel parking. Standard rec path width
is 10‐ft and standard sidewalk width is 5‐feet. The applicant has not indicated the proposed width of
these features. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide 5‐ft of separation between
the sidewalk and the roadway.
29. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what elements of the project will need to be
modified to accommodate this requirement, and consider the impacts of those changes on the street
presence, landscaping, and other elements of the project discussed herein.
The applicant met with the bike and pedestrian committee in relation to connectivity between master
plan areas, and at that meeting the committee requested the addition of a recreation path along the
segment of Two Brothers Drive between Kennedy Drive and Obrien Farm Road. Both of the connecting
roadways have bike paths, and the committee considered connection between them to be important.
30. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to include a recreation path along this roadway
segment at the next stage of review. The path should be consistent with the above comments about
roadway cross section.
D) OTHER
Lighting
Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations addresses exterior lighting as follows.
B. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one‐family
and two‐family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as
will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from
any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are
illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
14
14 of 16
translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for
uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is
encouraged.
C. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following:
1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot
shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures
on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a
reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light
fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height.
2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize
lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to
reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or
positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having
a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public.
Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be
minimized to drivers on adjacent streets.
3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar
structural material, with a decorative surface or finish.
4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall
utilize underground wiring.
5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize
underground wiring.
6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the
structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures
shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure.
The applicant is proposing 20‐ft high metal light poles in the parking areas, and light fixtures
consistent with City standards on the roadways. They have provided a photometric drawing
indicating an average of 1.06 footcandles, but have included the areas of the stormwater treatment
practices, in which no lights are proposed and which are shielded from the lighted areas by the
proposed buildings, in their calculation.
31. Staff recommends the Board require at the next stage of review an updated lighting plan omitting
areas outside of the lots and the stormwater areas within the lots from the calculation of average
illumination. Staff also recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a smaller grid
spacing to allow evaluation of spillover beyond property lines.
Bicycle Parking
Staff recommends the Board consider this criterion on a lot by lot basis. Minimum required bicycle
spaces are as follows.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
15
15 of 16
Lot # of
Units
SF
Commercial
Required
short
term
spaces
Required
Long
Term
Spaces
Required
Clothes
Lockers
10 44 0 5 44 0
11 44 0 5 44 0
12 48 0 5 48 0
13 118 3,500 13 119 1
14 33 0 4 33 0
15 103 0 11 103 0
Short Term Bicycle Parking
The applicant has proposed a group of five bicycle racks near the entrance to each building. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that the racks support two bicycles each in
accordance with the standards of 13.14B(2), and meets the minimum spacing requirements of
Appendix G at final plat.
32. Assuming each rack supports two bicycles, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to add
two racks near an entrance to the building on Lot 13 and one rack near an entrance to the building
on Lot 15 at the next stage of review. If the Board requires the applicant to add entrances to the
buildings, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to more evenly
distribute the racks between entrances.
Long Term Bike Storage
The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages, but it is not clear
whether these storage areas will meet the minimum required number of spaces.
33. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide details on these storage areas at the
next stage of review, including demonstration of how the required minimum numbers will be
provided. Staff notes that for some buildings there are fewer parking garage spaces than there are
units in the buildings therefore one long‐term space per parking stall will not meet the required
minimums.
Traffic Overlay District
The project is located with the traffic overlay district Zone 3. The master plan has a total area of 39.16
acres (39.76 acres pending approval of MP‐20‐01) and therefore has a traffic budget of 1762 (or 1789)
vehicle trips per PM peak hour. The project’s TIS estimates full build of the project will generate 428 trips,
revised to 282 trips based on the 2/5/2020 traffic memo. Staff considers this criterion met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Board and Staff to address the issues identified herein,
and that the Board continue the hearing to July 21 to consider the remaining lots.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
16
16 of 16
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner