HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05A_SD-20-16_255 Kennedy Dr_OBrien_PP_SC
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD-20-16 255 Kennedy Drive Preliminary Plat Application
DATE: September 15, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, has submitted preliminary plat application #SD-20-16 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 Board reviewed the application on May 19, July 7, and most recently August 4, 2020. During those
hearings the applicant provided testimony on the applicable review criteria and received Board feedback with
the intent of providing a consolidated response following this initial review. On September 1, 2020, the
applicant submitted formal responses to Board feedback. This memo revisits the topics identified on May 19,
July 7 and August 4 and provides an update as to the status of the topics. Staff has omitted from these Staff
Comments topics where Board feedback was minimal are omitted.
This staff memo first provides some general comments responding to the applicant’s supplemental submission
on 9/1, and then steps through the applicable review criteria. Staff recommends the Board review the
applicant’s supplemental submission of 9/1 and familiarize themselves with these initial general comments.
Staff considers no discussion of these initial general comments is needed if the Board does not feel it necessary.
1. In the applicant’s cover memo dated September 1, 2020, the applicant has taken the approach in 13 of 80
responses to staff comments that if a request of the Board is not spelled out in the regulations, there is no basis
for review or requirement to comply, and then sometimes they have accommodated the request
notwithstanding. As a project having received a Master Plan approval and applying as a Planned Unit
Development, there are several reasons why the applicant must accommodate requests of the Board as a quasi-
judicial body.
• First, at the master plan level, the applicant made representations about what the project would be in
order to obtain certain approvals. Specifically, the master plan approved the number of units, the total
site coverage, the roadway layout, the open space location, and the trip generation. Since the
applicant enjoys the benefits of not having to demonstrate to the Board at each phase that each of
these elements of the project are acceptable (for example, the requirement to add a park in Phase II or
relocate the intersection of Two Brothers Drive farther from Kimball Avenue are not on the table), the
applicant is obligated to provide a project consistent with the master plan approval.
#SD-20-16
2
• Second, the specific language of the LDR and the State enabling language for PUD’s (24 VSA § 4417
Planned unit development) allows the Board to modify the specific standards in order to support
“innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-
development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.” This means the Board has
both the authority to waive standards and to require additional measures.
• Third, the applicant is requesting further waivers of height and setbacks not already granted in the
master plan. The Board is not obligated to accept waiver requests. Should the Board find that the
proposed density, which is the driving factor for the requested waivers, is not supported by the design,
the Board may simply deny the requested waivers.
• Finally, the applicant states on several occasions that the LDR does not provide proscriptive language as
to how a standard must be met. This is intentional on the part of the drafters, who recognize that
there are multiple ways to achieve an end, and places the responsibility of determining whether a
criterion is satisfied in the authority of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial entity.
The applicant’s cover memo specifically addresses the staff comments from May 18, July 7 and July 21. Staff
comments 18 through 27 from the July 21 hearing were not yet discussed by the Board but are addressed in
the applicant’s cover memo. Issues raised by comments 18 through 27 from the July 21 hearing which Staff
considers warrant further discussion are incorporated herein.
2. The applicant received MP approval and final plat approval for Phase 1 of the MP. The applicant has stated
with respect to roadways and open spaces that they have approval for that element of the current phase as part
of the master plan or final plat for Phase 1. While certain elements of Phase 2 may have been shown on the
Phase 1 final plat plans, the Phase 1 final plat focused on review of Phase 1 only and the master plan approves
overall locations only not detailed design. Staff considers it to be unlikely that circumstances surrounding a 458
unit unbuilt development would be completely unchanged over a more than 3 year period and the applicant
should be expected and required to exhibit some flexibility to adapt to issues identified in this more detailed
review. An example of changed circumstances include the applicant’s own presentation of the planned
development on the far side of Old Farm Road.
3. The master plan decision establishes the geographic limits of the master plan. The master plan established the
permanent open space and roadway layout, but also limited the geography. Any changes to the master plan
area require amendment of that master plan. The applicant is proposing as part of this application
development outside the master plan area, and has requested that the Board consider that as a conditional use.
If the Board determines to accept this request, the applicant must make a conditional use application
(conditional use was not warned as part of this application) and the Board must review the request against
conditional use criteria as a stand-alone project. Further information pertaining to the specifics of the
applicant’s request is discussed below.
4. In general, the applicant is asking for a lot of issues to be vetted at final plat, far more than is typical. The Board
may accept this approach, or may request issues be settled prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing. If the
Board chooses to accept this approach it will result in a more complicated preliminary plat decision.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The applicant has provided an amended plat showing the proposed boundaries of each lot.
The applicant has provided Sheet C-1A Zoning Plan dated August 27, 2020 in support of their request to allow
the requirements of the R12 zoning district to be applied to the involved area within the R1-PRD zoning district.
At the May 19 hearing the Board did not have any particular concerns about this request, and Staff
#SD-20-16
3
recommends the Board grant it as part of preliminary plat.
The applicant has provided an updated lot coverage table showing the proposed coverage by zoning district.
LDR 15.02A(4)(b) prohibits the lot coverage in each zoning district from exceeding the maximum allowable in that
zoning district. The master plan also sets an overall lot coverage of 50% and a maximum building coverage of 35%.
Coverages for the involved zoning districts are as follows.
District Max Lot Coverage Proposed Lot Coverage Max Building Coverage Proposed Building Coverage
R12 60% 45.0% 40% 21.0%
C1-LR 70% 62.8% 40% 35.7%
R1-PRD 25% 12.1% 15% 10.7%
Staff considers lot coverages within the allowable maximums.
The applicant requested a 6-foot setback for the building on Lot 14, which the Board considered reasonable
given the Applicant’s representation of the project.
Similarly, the applicant requested height waivers from the maximum allowable height of 25 feet to 51 to 62
feet, representing heights double the standard allowable height in the applicable zoning district. The Board
considered these requests reasonable given the applicant’s representation of the project, but as noted above,
the Board may modify their acceptance if the applicant does not deliver a project with a strong and engaging
street presence with attractive transitions between buildings as described.
B) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Recent amendments to the regulations pertaining to Inclusionary Zoning apply to this application. This was
discussed briefly on May 18, but the discussion was limited due to some confusion as to the number of units
proposed and the fact that the amendments had not yet been adopted. At this time, Staff has prepared a full
review of the characteristics of the proposed inclusionary housing, but has omitted a detailed discussion of how
the required percentages are attained. This is because the applicant has indicated in their cover letter that
they are uncertain about the total proposed number of units. Staff considers that it is possible for the Board to
preliminarily find certain elements of the inclusionary zoning requirements met while setting certain
requirements for the applicant at final plat. Staff recommends the Board keep this potential approach in mind
while reviewing the characteristics of the proposed inclusionary housing.
Under 18.01, 15% of approved rental dwelling units subject to this application must be inclusionary, with some
bonus provided for affordable units with more than 2 bedrooms. The applicant is then allotted one additional
market rate dwelling unit for each required inclusionary rental unit as an offset. The applicant in their cover
memo of 9/1/2020 has indicated they now anticipate constructing 392 units, of which 49 will be inclusionary.
Previously the applicant estimated they would be constructing 390 units in this phase, and 48 of them will be
inclusionary. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose and commit to a specific number of
units at final plat, which number may differ from the currently proposed unit count by no more than 5%.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site
Construction) of this Article.
The applicant is proposing to construct units on site.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward
#SD-20-16
4
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout,
scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single building
or multiple buildings.
The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this criterion:
Applicant discussed this at length with the Board. The specific text of the regulations very
clearly states: “Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall
layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a
single building” (emphasis added). As stated here, the integration of the inclusionary units can
be achieved in a single building. As discussed at the hearing, and verified by members of the
affordable housing committee in attendance, the intention of this specific language was to
allow for the inclusionary components of projects to be built by non-profit and other low-income
focused housing developers, as proposed in this Project. A likely benefit of this proposal is that
the proposed inclusionary units may achieve a deeper affordability than they otherwise would,
if mixed into each market-rate building, due to the financing mechanisms. Applicant also noted
that this building is prominent in the project, occupying one of the four corners of the major
intersection proposed, directly across the street and in between two other market rate
buildings. It is certainly integrated in the fabric of the plan as it is a central element of the plan
and one of the most prominent buildings in the plan. Applicant believes the board was satisfied
this criterion was met, and so no additional information is provided here.
Staff considers that provision of the units in a single building meets this criterion provided they are
integrated into and compliment the overall layout, scale and massing of the proposed development,
but that this criterion does not restrict the Board from requiring the single building to contain a
mixture of inclusionary and market rate units or from requiring inclusionary units to be located within
other buildings.
5. Based on feedback provided by the Board at previous hearings on this application, Staff recommends
the Board discuss whether they need additional testimony on this matter, and enter into deliberations
to determine what conditions, if any, to impose regarding mixed rate housing in this decision.
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural
design details quality of those of the market rate units in the development. However, the exterior
dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units.
At previous hearings on this matter, the Board indicated that this is criterion preliminarily met.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
Staff considers provision of the CBES certificate will demonstrate compliance with this criterion. The
RBES certificate must be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building.
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities
and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary
units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square
feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the
average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the
minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable
Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable
Area of the market rate units.
#SD-20-16
5
Staff recommends the Board require demonstration of compliance with this criterion as part of the
final plat application.
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market rate
duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units
developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be
accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the
appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
Staff considers this criterion appears to be preliminarily met.
(vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than
the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more
dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer
at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences
in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units
for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit.
Staff considers the Board should require a solid proposal for number of bedrooms at final plat and
that the Board may wish to consider setting a maximum variation in number of bedrooms as a
condition of final plat approval.
(viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as
bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one
(1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.
If the applicant is proposing to use this provision, Staff considers they should provide testimony on
it at final plat.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The
applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and
occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may
attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation
from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing
non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
The inclusionary units are proposed on Lot 12. The applicant provided the following testimony on this
criterion
The Applicant is proposing a phased project. The initial phase proposed would see development
of Lot 13 and Lot 15 simultaneously with the market rate apartments outlined. Subsequent
phases will see development of the remaining market rate and inclusionary apartments. The
Applicant has partnered with a non-profit who relies on funding cycles and subsidies for
construction of the inclusionary apartments. Given this, they are unable to provide a firm date
for occupancy and completion of that component which depends on availability of subsidies.
Applicant is willing to accept a condition that would restrict construction of the final market
rate building until the inclusionary component is completed, and believes that would satisfy this
criterion. This was suggested by the Board at our meeting as an alternative, and we would be
supportive of that. Champlain Housing Trust is also able to provide clarity on their process and
goals for the parcel, and even a letter confirming their intent to develop the parcel, if necessary.
#SD-20-16
6
In current planning, Applicant expects to begin its first phase of construction in 2022, and
complete the phase in 2024. Champlain Housing Trust would anticipate getting funding likely
between 2022-2024 as discussed so far. Given this, it would seem the building will likely be built
concurrently, though the funding is not confirmed, and so a condition to that end would not be
workable.
Staff recommends the Board require the inclusionary units be constructed no later than halfway
through the market rate units/buildings. Pursuant to the above, the applicant may return to the Board
for a modification if financing is delayed. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they have any
questions for the applicant on this matter prior to entering deliberations.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water
allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has provided the following response
Applicant will apply for preliminary wastewater allocation prior to applying for final plat.
Applicant is not responsible for the issuance of such allocation and so would suggest that no
conditions requiring issuance prior to filing final plat be included. We may file for final plat prior
to receiving the preliminary allocation and that does not seem to pose any issue for the City.
Limiting our permit filing to the performance of others would not seem to be appropriate.
Staff notes that there are multiple issues here. First, the provision of preliminary allocation is a
requirement of approval. This is because no development should be approved that cannot be served
by the City. Second, the Water Department and DPW are always very responsive to requests for
preliminary allocation and there is no cost associated with them, therefore this criterion does not place
undue burden on the applicant. Staff reiterates that the Board should include a condition requiring
preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to final plat application.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings
of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff
or consultants.
It was previously noted that the project is proposed to generate 146 fewer trips than were estimated in
the 2016 Traffic Impact Study (TIS), from 315 trips to 169 trips, and the intersection widening and
signalization were developed to support the higher trip count.
6. The applicant testified that they would review whether the widening continued to be appropriate at
final plat. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they would like to see this information prior to
the conclusion of preliminary plat.
(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. For
Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources
identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City
of South Burlington.
#SD-20-16
7
The applicant provided revised landscaping exhibits showing the proposed open space for each lot. Staff
recommends the Board review these exhibits.
(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.
The applicant numerous times in their cover letter notes that they believe the complete roadway
design was approved in SD-17-17, the final plat application for Phase 1 of the master plan area.
Putting aside for the moment the purpose of SD-17-17 being for a different phase of the
development, the applicant provided no description of the project on the application form for #SD-
17-17, and therefore it became incumbent upon Staff to develop a description of the project. #SD-
17-17 was warned as follows:
Final plat application #SD-17-17 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development on
39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14
lots, 255 Kennedy Drive.
This project description did not include approval of the design of the roadways for Phase 2.
Further, as noted in the introduction above, the applicant should be expected and required to exhibit
some flexibility to adapt to issues identified in this more detailed review of Phase 2.
Staff and the Bike & Pedestrian Committee have provided a number of reasons a recreation path
should be included on Two Brothers Drive, include connectivity for the homes on Kennedy Drive
between Eldridge Street and Kimball Ave and the benefits of connecting bicycle users with the
proposed signal at Two Brothers Drive rather than the un-signaled intersection at Eldridge Street.
At the 7/21 hearing, the Board asked the applicant to provide more detailed information on the
design of the roadway. The applicant has not provided any supplemental civil or roadway drawings.
Upon closer examination of the provided plans, it appears a bike lane is proposed on the uphill side
of Two Brothers Drive.
7. Pursuant to the comment above regarding evolution of the design, Staff recommends the Board
discuss whether to require the applicant to replace the proposed bike lane with a recreation path (or
urban equivalent, see next red item below) on this segment of roadway. Staff recommends the Board
take into consideration the applicants concurrent (but separate) proposal for development of 415
residential units and up to 1,285,000 sf of commercial space on either side of Old Farm Road in making
their determination.
The applicant is proposing additional parallel parking along O’Brien Farm Road resulting in the
sidewalk being directly adjacent to the roadway without a green strip, and to transition the
previously approved rec path to a narrower concrete sidewalk with integrated tree wells through
this portion of the development. As noted at previous hearings and required under 14.07G, a 5-
foot green strip is required for snow removal. The applicant has testified that they believe their
proposal more consistent with an urban feel. While Staff appreciates this sentiment, Staff
considers that bicycle accommodations should be provided, and that the cross section should be
compatible with City maintenance standards if the applicant wishes for it to be accepted as a public
street.
#SD-20-16
8
8. Therefore Staff proposes that the Board require the applicant to engage a design consultant who
specializes in streetscape design to propose a cross section and supporting testimony demonstrating
that the proposal provides a safe urban environment accommodating all users as part of their final
plat application. Such a proposal should take into consideration the transition from recreation path
and detached homes, vehicular speeds, and the potential dichotomy of users enjoying the
streetscape in place at the same time as there are users traveling along it.
D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
B. 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.
See discussion below under 14.06C.
(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.
Parking is required to be located to the rear and sides of buildings. Parking on it’s own lot without
a building, separate from the Master Plan or PUD, is considered commercial parking. The applicant
has generally provided parking to the sides and rear, with the exception of a large area of parking
east of Lot 13, which is also on a separate lot and partially within a different zoning district.
As discussed on 7/7, the applicant is proposing development on Lot 17 to include 24,780 sf of
driveway, parking and sidewalk, broken into two general areas. One area is contiguous with the
parking on Lot 13, and the other is separate. The area of these improvements 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. Staff considers the applicant may amend their master plan to
include the parking contiguous with the parking on Lot 13, but that THIS application is for Phase 2
of MP-16-03 and therefore development outside of the master plan area cannot be reviewed or
approved. Regarding the separate parking area, Staff had suggested that the Board may consider
temporary improvements on this parcel without restricting its future development, but in their
cover letter of 9/1 the applicant rejected this suggestion. The applicant has instead asked that the
Board consider both parking areas on Lot 17 as commercial parking which may be allowed subject
to conditional use review. Staff considers that this appears to be an attempt to circumvent the
rules regarding parking in the front, as the parking is clearly for the use of Lot 13 & 15 and no
building is proposed or planned between the parking and the street. Development of Lot 17
without a thorough review of the programming and design for Lot 17 should not be approved.
Finally, the applicant has stated that they have submitted a pending application for development
on Lot 17 but in fact the currently pending application is only for subdivision of Lot 17.
Contradicting their request for conditional use approval for the parking on Lot 17, the applicant has
argued in their cover letter that they believe the parking as designed is allowed. Criterion
#SD-20-16
9
14.06B(2) is specifically intended to prevent parking from being located nearer to the street than
the adjoining building, which is how the Board has always interpreted it. As one of the only three
criteria which the Board does not have the ability to waive as part of a PUD, Staff considers this
non-negotiable and the applicant must remove parking located between the front line of the
building and the street. The applicant may choose to modify the front line of the building so that it
is nearer the street.
These comments regarding front parking also apply to two spaces between the building on Lot 12
and the street, and any other locations where parking breaks the front plane of the building, as
extended either linearly or along a curve as applicable.
13.01 provides parking minimums for multifamily buildings. As noted on 7/7, the applicant
currently meets required minimums. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration of
continued compliance with parking minimums at final plat.
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.
In response to comments in the applicant’s letter of 9/1, Staff notes these criteria and 14.06B(1) above
specifically give the Board authority to evaluate the external appearance of buildings, including
requiring an engaging street presence to support harmonious relationships between elements of the
project.
The applicant provided testimony and supplemental exhibits on 7/7 and 7/21 about enhanced street
presence for each building, and provided updated elevation drawings and “Image Sheets” reflecting
these updates for this hearing date.
In the updated elevations for each building, the applicant has provided one additional street level
entrance for each building, which opens into a common space roughly the size of a small apartment for
buildings on lots 13, and 14, and roughly the size of 1.5 parking spaces for buildings on lots 10, 11, 12
and 14. As noted on 7/21, Staff considers the facades should not rely entirely on the “illusion” of active
space but should instead include spaces such as a lobby area, gym, maker space, lounge, or other
amenities (including residential units) chosen by the applicant to increase the street presence of the
buildings. The applicant has also added decorative screening to some garage openings, while others
are proposed to be standard louvers.
Staff considers these two improvements alone do not constitute compliance with these criteria. The
applicant provided schematic illustrations of street-side landscape architecture features which would
supplement the architecture on 7/7, including seating areas, variation in vegetation, and artwork. Staff
recommends that if the Board takes these schematics into consideration in their findings on these
criteria, that the Board include a condition requiring demonstration of consistency with these concepts
at final plat.
In the updated landscape concepts for each building, the applicant has shown a separate off-street
common area for each building, but these common areas are tucked away and do not particularly
support compliance with this criterion. In the originally submitted landscaping concept the applicant
#SD-20-16
10
showed limited details of how the transitions between buildings will be achieved at the street. Their
narrative states that they will provide an engaging street presence. Staff recommends the Board find
that the applicant must, in addition to the concepts presented in the provided elevations, demonstrate
a harmonious relationship at the transition BETWEEN buildings at the next stage of review in order to
support and overall pedestrian-oriented environment. Particular attention should be paid to the
intersection of O’Brien Farm Road and Two Brothers Drive, and the location where the Phase 1 area
abuts the Phase 2 area.
Staff recommends the Board review the drawings provided on 7/7, 7/21 and in this packet and consider
whether they have any further questions for the applicant on the general appearance of the buildings
from the street.
Lot 13
The Board discussed on 7/21 that this building is one of the very few places in the development where
there is living space at street level, and recommended the Board require at least some of the first-floor
units to have entry doors to foster a sense of community. The applicant provided the following
response in their letter of 9/1.
As discussed at the hearing, there are a number of challenges in this particular location with
connecting each apartment to the street. The primary challenge is that the street grade is
actually higher than the apartment grades, and so the result will be that stairs and concrete will
be sloping towards the building, creating water infiltration issues and significant
constructability challenges. Also, the aesthetic of having stairs heading down to units is likely
not the desired effect. As Applicant also made clear at the hearing, these direct connections do
pose a security concern for the entire building, and especially the specific apartments impacted.
This concern would not foster a sense of safety and security that a secure building with
restricted access offers, and which is comforting to many residents who do not want direct
access to their sleeping areas from the street. In larger multifamily rental buildings, there is a
need for control points. We own, operate and manage a large number of rental properties,
many of which are here in South Burlington, and know that this is of critical concern.
Comparing a large multifamily building’s access points to that of a single family or townhome
duplex is simply not an apples to apples comparison. Lastly, these sorts of direct accesses cause
floor plan issues in the apartments themselves and can impact furniture placement and overall
livability negatively, causing potential tenants to find them undesirable. Given there is no
requirement for these entrances, and the significant issues they pose, Applicant has not
included them in the plan.
In response to this request the Applicant has added a second building common area access on
this façade, which is shown at Exhibit 017. We believe that this additional entrance achieves a
similar outcome to what is requested by staff, but achieves this without the negative
consequences outlined above. We believe the board agreed with this solution at our hearing,
but will look forward to discussing this further if necessary.
Staff considers the testimony regarding safety and layout to be problematic in several respects,
regardless of the Board’s ultimate decision. Safety can take several forms, including physical separation
from others for the purposes of physical security and of public health. Further, Staff is not aware of any
law enforcement or groups or organizations dedicated to public safety in Vermont having expressed
safety concerns for direct access to dwelling units. Absent evidence, any such allegations must be
rebuffed.
#SD-20-16
11
Homes in downtown Winooski have street entrances for every apartment, as do new multi-story
buildings on Market Street and Quarry Hill Road in South Burlington.
If the Board considers the issue to be unsettled, Staff would be happy to invite professionals to provide
testimony on the facts of safety.
Regarding design, the applicant testified during the master plan hearings that their intention was to
create a development which would resemble the T4 FBC zoning. Multifamily residential buildings in the
City’s Form Based Code area are required to have entrances at spacing no greater than 36-feet. As
noted above, the Board’s approval of the master plan was based on the applicant’s testimony and
therefore it is appropriate to require consistency where circumstances are unchanged. Therefore Staff
considers the Board’s ultimate decision on entrances, stoops and balconies should take into
consideration the master plan, applicable provisions of the LDR, comprehensive plan as applicable, and
site constraints, and should not be influenced by testimony regarding safety or interior layout.
(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.
Heights are discussed elsewhere in this document. On 7/7, the Board discussed the 103 unit building
on Lot 13 and how it’s scale would be integrated through the use of hardscape areas. The applicant has
provided a conceptual sketch of the plaza area uphill of the proposed parking garage entrance and
testified as to it’s character at a previous hearing. Staff considers that if the Board finds this criterion
met, the applicant is obligated to provide a design consistent with their presentation at final plat.
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.
Deficiencies in pedestrian access to waste disposal were discussed on 7/7 and 7/21. Staff recommends the
Board include a condition requiring safe pedestrian access to waste disposals.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
There are a number of standards pertaining to landscaping, including minimum landscaping value, screening,
interior parking lot landscaping, curbing, tree variety, shading, planting islands, and snow storage. The Board
provided feedback to the applicant at previous hearings. Snow storage areas have been designated, but the
remainder of the landscaping plan is not yet developed, nor is it required to be, at this preliminary plat stage of
review, Staff recommends the Board defer findings on landscaping criterion, including snow storage, to final
plat.
9. Regarding snow storage, 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. This comments was previously provided on 7/21 but time did not allow it
to be addressed.
As previously noted, Staff considers that a densely planted buffer between the street and the buildings 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.
#SD-20-16
12
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Staff
recommends that if the Board preliminarily considers no additional testimony is needed, the Board enter into
deliberative session to review the main issues prior to closing the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner