HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05B_SD-20-16_255 Kennedy Dr_OBrien_PP_plans
Exhibit Table of Contents
Exhibit Name Exhibit Description
Exhibit 001 City Comments on Application Dated May 13, 2020
Exhibit 002 City Comments on Application Dated June 26, 2020
Exhibit 003 City Comments on Application Dated July 15, 2020
Exhibit 004 Updated Sheet PL-1 Showing Lot 11 Revision
Exhibit 005 Coverage Chart with Zoning District Coverage
Exhibit 006 Zoning District Limit and Acreage Plan
Exhibit 007 Updated Building Height Chart
Exhibit 008 Updated Building Floor Plate Plans Lot 10, Lot 11, Lot 12, Lot 13, Lot
14, Lot 15
Exhibit 009 Updated Landscape Concept for Lot 13
Exhibit 010 Updated Landscape Concept Sheet for intersection of Parking areas
at Lot 12, 13, 14, 15.
Exhibit 011 Updated Landscape Concept for Lot 15
Exhibit 012 Updated Landscape Concept for Lot 10
Exhibit 013 Updated Landscape Concept for Lot 11
Exhibit 014 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 10
Exhibit 015 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 11
Exhibit 016 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 12
Exhibit 017 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 13
Exhibit 018 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 14
Exhibit 019 Updated Architectural Elevation Lot 15
Exhibit 020 Landscape Concept/Vision Sheet Amenity Areas
Exhibit 021 Landscape Concept/Vision Sheet for Plaza
Exhibit 022 Landscape Vision Sheet for Garage Screening
Exhibit 023 Aerial Rendering Showing Transition on Lot 14
Exhibit 024 Final Plat Decision SD-17-17
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 1, 2020
South Burlington Development Review Board
C/O Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Preliminary Plat Review: Hillside at O’Brien Farm Multifamily Apartment Project Supplemental
Dear Board Members:
O’Brien Farm Road, LLC (“Applicant”) filed for Preliminary Plat Review for a proposed development of
3500 square feet of office space and 390 multi-family rental dwelling units including 48 units priced at or below
80% of AMI and 47 offset apartment units provided under the new inclusionary zoning ordinance, as well as
associated parking, landscaping and stormwater improvements in April of 2020, hereafter referred to as the
“Project.”. Since that time, we have received extensive feedback from the City and the Board, at multiple
hearings discussing the Project. Staff comments are provided in three separate files dated May 13, 2020 (Exhibit
001), June 26, 2020 (Exhibit 002) and July 15, 2020 (Exhibit 003). This supplemental information is intended to
solidify the testimony and additional information provided by Applicant during the public hearings so far in
response to feedback received.
The below supplemental information is organized parallel to staff comments provided. Each of the
three sections corresponds to a staff report. In each section the responses will address particular staff concerns.
Supplemental exhibits and information are referenced as needed and are provided.
I. Staff Report Dated May 13, 2020.
1. Staff Comment #3: “It is not clear from the provided plans how Lot 11 is proposed to be modified.”
Applicant has provided an updated sheet PL-1 showing clearly the revision to Lot 11. See Exhibit 004.
The revision consisted of removing a hammerhead turnaround right of way as the road was extended.
2. Staff Comment #4: “Require applicant to demonstrate that allowable coverages are met on a zoning
district by zoning district basis.”
Please see amended coverage chart at Exhibit 005. All coverage limits outlined in the staff report are
met on a zoning district basis, in addition to the coverage limits put in place in the Master Plan.
2
3. Staff Comment #5: Clarify request regarding extension of R12 district regulations per Section 3.03(C),
split lots.
Applicant believes that as part of the previous final plat approvals zoning district lines were moved to
decrease R1 and increase R12 land within the Master Plan and that the resulting density has been
contemplated in the current numbers. While this may be the case, no exhibit was provided explicitly to
demonstrate this zoning line change in the record. Applicant has provided a new plan here, attached as
Exhibit 006, which shows the zoning district limits as used to calculate coverage herein, as well as
density within the approved Master Plan. Please see Exhibit 006.
4. Staff Comment #6: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the provided building
height, footage and unit breakdown table to indicate finish floor elevation.”
The amended table was provided a few months ago. It is attached here as Exhibit 007.
5. Staff Comment #7: This is addressed in a future staff comment, and is not discussed here.
6. Staff Comment #8: “Staff recommends the Board review whether the applicant has compensated for the
requested height waiver by providing high quality, varied and complimentary architecture for all
buildings.”
Applicant believes that Board feedback on this was positive. Applicant has not provided any
supplemental architectural exhibits to respond to this particular staff comment. The response from the
Board was favorable, and we are glad the architecture was commensurate with the issuance of this
waiver which is critical in enabling the Project to proceed.
7. Staff Comment #9: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide three additional
inclusionary units.”
As discussed, the applicant is making use of reductions in required affordable units based on the
construction of three- and four-bedroom units. The regulations state: “A developer who constructs
inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two
three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed.” The regulations further state, “A developer who
constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall received credit for four inclusionary units for
every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed.
The Project contains 8, 3-bedroom inclusionary units and 3, four-bedroom inclusionary units. Given the
proposed unit mix and the number of 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom inclusionary units proposed, we
believe Applicant could reduce the inclusionary requirement to be only 45 inclusionary units. However,
Applicant has made use of 49 offset units. The reduction in inclusionary units for three and four-
bedroom construction is not available for any unit where offsets are used. Given this, the maximum
reduction available is to 49. Applicant is therefore proposing 49 inclusionary units at this time. See
updated floor plan Exhibit 008 for unit layout information. Please note that the total number of units is
increased to be 392 units in this updated application. In reconfiguring spaces to account for Board and
Staff feedback, two additional units were realized.
3
8. Staff Comment #10: “Applicant is proposing to locate 48 inclusionary units in a single building. Staff
recommends that the board ask the applicant to demonstrate how the location of these units meets
these criteria.”
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.
9. Staff Comment #11: “Staff recommends the Board require applicant to propose how they will comply
with the requirement for concurrent development and occupancy of inclusionary units.”
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. 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.
10. Staff Comment #12: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to apply for and obtain
preliminary wastewater allocation prior to applying for final plat.”
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.
4
11. Staff Comment #13: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate the comments of
the South Burlington Water Department into their plans at final plat.”
Applicant has agreed and will incorporate the feedback provided, with which we have no current
concerns.
12. Staff Comment #14: “Since Phase 2 trips are now projected to be so much lower than were estimated in
2016, staff recommends the Applicant evaluate whether the proposed intersection geometry is still
appropriate.”
Applicant will review the intersections proposed and include any modifications as analyzed by the traffic
engineer at final plat.
13. Staff Comment #15: “At this more formal stage of review, Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to remove the head-in parking and if the applicant so desires, replace it with parallel parking
spaces.”
As discussed at the hearing, the six parking spaces mentioned here are part of an approved final plat, for
a roadway that will soon be under construction and for which no further permits are required. The
applicant is unable to amend this plan at this time and these spaces will remain unchanged and will be
constructed in accordance with issued permits for development now underway.
14. Staff Comment #16: “Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to provide a plan showing
protection for these trees to remain at final plat.”
Applicant is happy to provide a plan showing protection for any trees to remain at final plat. As noted by
Applicant in the hearing, one of these two areas are now proposed for stormwater collection and
therefore the trees will need to be removed. This proposal will be made clear in the next stage of
review.
15. Staff Comment #17: “Staff does, however, recommend the Board discuss with the applicant who will be
able to use the open space area within Lot 13, and whether it will be restricted to times of year or times
of day, and consider whether the open spaces in the multifamily area, taken in aggregate, are
adequate.”
As discussed at the hearings, the proposal for the exterior open space on Lot 13 no longer contains a
pool. A new sketch for the proposed area is attached at Exhibit 009. Applicant is proposing that the
exterior open space on Lot 13, which consists of chairs, picnic tables, grills, a fire pit and plantings, will
be exclusively used by residents of Lot 13. Facilitating access for multiple additional buildings through
the lobby of a secure residential facility would be challenging. This access would need to be deeded, in
compliance with permits if it was a condition, and could pose significant marketability challenges, in
addition to security and management risk for the owner of the building. Conditions requiring that
tenants of other buildings be allowed into a private building owned by another entity would be
inherently complicated and could cause significant management issues. Any such condition would
require carve outs for management to make judgements related to safety of residents, and to allow
management the right to restrict access for safety and security purposes. The complexity of process
needed for a permit condition that would seek to allow hundreds access to a private building space is
not necessary. Since the amenities on Lot 13 are substantially identical – adjusted for scale of occupants
5
- to the amenities available at grade throughout the PUD on easily accessible exterior property, there
seems to be no justification for requiring such access, especially given the complexity. As such, the
proposal is for the Lot 13 amenities to be accessed by Lot 13 only. Of course, any at-grade amenities,
such as the food truck hub, tables, chairs, benches, seat walls, streetscape, would be available to all. But
there seems to be no reason to allow approximately 275 units access to the lobby and on structure deck
of Lot 13, simply to use the chairs, tables and grills on its balcony, when each of those buildings has their
own.
In the context of broader open space amenities, the Applicant does not believe the Staff feedback that:
“The general configuration of open space was preliminarily approved at the Master Plan level,” is
accurate. If this is accurate, it would mean that Applicant is free to remove open space from the
ongoing development if it so chooses, as it isn’t required, or even fully approved at this time, it is merely
a preliminary approval. Final Plat SD-17-17 confirmed and approved in finality the open spaces
associated with the six lots now under development which are part of that Project. It did so in
conjunction with a master plan approval, MP-16-03. The entire purpose of a Master Plan, as defined in
the Regulations is to designate the “arrangement of developed and undeveloped areas,” in a project.
I.E. to designate open space lots. This is the sole and most important trait of the Master Plan, and
represents the core definition of the plan itself. The size and sufficiency of open space via these two
decisions has been reviewed and decided with finality. It is not acceptable to dismiss those findings, and
the multi-year process of discussion and compromise that resulted in the construction of millions of
dollars in privately financed public infrastructure now in place, a full public park donated by the
Applicant, and over a mile of City Roads, rec path and sidewalks, as preliminary. They are and will
continue to be fully approved and final. Amendable only by application and with just reason, to be
reviewed and decided by the Board. The sufficiency of open space for this project is decided and
approved.
To the request of the Board and staff that the Applicant look at creative ways to incorporate amenities
for residents of the multi-family apartments proposed we appreciate the desire and we have worked
hard to create these spaces. While the size and sufficiency of parks and open space has been reviewed
and decided, we are of course eager to include any additional outdoor spaces that are feasible within
the development. To this end, Applicant has provided a series of landscape concept sketches as well as
character sheets which provide color to the overall creation of pockets of open space, and the potential
programing of those areas with useful items that will knit together the community. These community
building concepts include, barbeque areas, gas fire pits, bocce courts, picnic areas and elevated decks, as
well as a food truck hub, which can be used for neighborhood events and by food trucks as they so
choose during lunchtime or dinner time to create a fun hub for the Hillside neighborhood. We believe
these spaces as designed will draw the neighborhood together. The conceptual sketches are attached as
Exhibit 009-013.
16. Staff Comment #18: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the Assistant
Stormwater Superintendents comments as part of the final plat application.”
The project engineer has reviewed the feedback provided and has met with the Assistant Stormwater
Superintendent to discuss the issues. We are confident that appropriate changes can be made for final
plat, and we will work with the City to ensure this is the case.
17. Staff Comment #19: “Staff recommends the board discuss applicant’s intent with these buildings.”
6
This comment is directed regarding the Lot 14 and Lot 15 Lincoln Brown renderings which did not show
the parking level of the buildings facing the street. This was an error in the digital rendering which will
be corrected prior to final plat, where more detailed renderings will be provided. Applicant has
provided updated elevation exhibits for these two lots at Exhibit 018 and Exhibit 019, attached. The
Board can see how each elevation will be treated. These elevations can be viewed together with the
landscape concepts provided, which add life and character to the Kennedy Drive facing facades as well.
Applicant will provide landscape plans with full details as part of final plat.
18. Staff Comment #20: “Staff recommends the board require the applicant to examine moving the
underground entry to the side of the building opposite Kennedy Drive, and expanding the building to
compensate for the resulting less efficient use of space.”
This feedback was with regard to the underground parking entrance originally proposed for access to Lot
15. Applicant explained during the hearing that this entrance can not be relocated to the opposite side
of the building due to grade issues that would fundamentally alter the underlying plan for the project. In
looking at this area, Applicant developed an alternate vision for a community destination with
hardscape and fun features that would attract residents and engage the community. The details of this
vision can be found at Exhibit 010, Exhibit 019 and Exhibit 020. The feedback from the board on this
food truck hub concept seemed very positive, and it will be incorporated into our final plat filing.
19. Staff Comment #21: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider an entry at the
corner.”
Applicant believes that an entry on the building corner was included in the original submission.
Regardless, the updated architectural elevations clearly show the corner entrance for Lot 15 as
requested. Applicant agrees that an entrance in this location should be included. Please see Exhibit 019.
20. Staff Comment #22: “If the building is not moved towards the street, Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to provide landscaping, put artwork here, or otherwise highlight the entry to the
building, or modify the site design to provide an aesthetic appropriate to the gateway.”
See response above at Section I(18). Applicant agrees and has addressed this feedback.
21. Staff Comment #23: “Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant providing street entrances
for first floor units having direct entries, and if that’s not possible, including at minimum useable decks.”
Applicant is appreciative of the desire to increase the connection of these buildings to the street, and
after discussing this feedback with the board, has included several new access points to the buildings on
the elevations provided. Please see updated architectural exhibits at Exhibit 014-019. Throughout the
Project, it is important to remember that grades are constantly moving, and not always relative to the
street. This means that making street connections is challenging. In many instances large staircases
would be needed. In some instances, bridges would be needed to cross drainage swales that are below
the sidewalk grade. Given these challenges, as well as security concerns related to direct first floor
access, Applicant has not presented options for direct unit access. There does not appear to be any
regulation which would require such access. Nor does there appear to be a regulation related to usable
exterior decks. Applicant has intentionally included Juliet balconies only, to eliminate the use of
balconies to store trash, recycling, or other unsightly storage that would detract from the architectural
investment being presented. We believe that the new entrances proposed achieve the goal of
7
increasing the connection to the street, and we are glad the board agreed with this direction at the
hearing.
22. Staff Comment #24: “Staff recommend the board direct the applicant to consider this possibility to
enhance the neighborhood feel of the corners of the buildings at Two Brothers Drive and O’Brien Farm
Road.”
This feedback is with regard to possible neighborhood commercial additions. The Project has been
designed as a residential development without commercial spaces. The applicant does not believe that
in the current configuration a commercial tenancy in this location would be viable. It is the case
however, that the future master plan for the land surrounding this area will achieve sufficient demand
for such commercial additions. The Applicant has included the mobile food truck hub in this project to
incorporate some commercial aspect in response to this request. If sufficient demand exists, it is
conceivable that a coffee truck or other food truck will be present frequently at the Project, or that part
of the office space now permitted could be converted. Applicant will look forward to achieving
appropriate commercial uses in adjacent development or when demand is established, but is not
proposing additional commercial uses at this time. The four corners will be largely made up of interior
common spaces, which will be decorated and lit to achieve a lively urban feel, in line with the landscape
concept sketches for this area, and the plaza image sheets provided at Exhibit 021. We appreciated the
Board discussion on this item and believe that this is largely agreed at this point.
II. Staff Report Dated June 26, 2020
1. Staff Comment #1: “Staff recommends the board allow the proposed setback on Lot 14.”
We are happy to have staff support for this waiver, which we believe is the only setback waiver needed
for the current plan. Further to the conversation at the hearing, we understand the Board also supports
this waiver. No additional information has been provided to address this item.
2. Staff Comment #2: This comment pertains to height and overall architecture. For response please see
Section I(6) above. Feedback on the architecture provided has been very favorable.
3. Staff Comment #3: “Staff recommends that the board ask for testimony from Champlain Housing trust at
this preliminary plat stage of review, as the boards denial of the applicant’s proposal would require
significant modification to the proposed project.”
This comment is with regard to compliance with Section 18.01, which is addressed at Section I(8) above.
Champlain Housing Trust did provide testimony at the hearing,
4. Staff Comment #4: “Staff considers that the 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.”
The City is requesting that the design of the neighborhood foster community, which Applicant
understands to mean a feeling of fellowship with others. The Project includes a number of elements
8
that are designed specifically to this end. Exhibit 009 through Exhibit 013 color in various different
amenities newly proposed. These include a bocce court, a food truck hub, outdoor dining areas, decks,
boardwalks, grilling stations and fire pits. All places where like-minded community members can
connect, and develop a sense of community with those living around them. The plan also includes a
bike and ski tuning shop, several pet grooming areas and maker rooms in the parking levels, as well as
large community gathering rooms in all buildings, in addition to smaller seating areas on each floor in
common lobbies and elevator areas. On Lot 10 and Lot 11, new common space connects directly to the
street, which will engage the street and community. These units have also had their common floor
lounges expanded to be a more comfortable size that will allow for seating arrangements. Please see
updated floor plate plans at Exhibit 008 for details on all of these additional spaces, added in response
to staff and board feedback.
Beyond these newly planned exterior and interior areas are the master planned open spaces where we
have designed walking trails and paths, and a full park with playground equipment where residents with
children will undoubtedly connect around common interests and build community.
Given that there appear to be no clear requirements, and no regulatory ordinance against which to
judge the Applicant’s proposal, the Applicant believes that the proposals provided clearly demonstrate a
thoughtful approach to the development, and the inclusion of numerous areas for residents to gather,
which will inevitably help build community for those residents who wish to connect with their
neighbors. It is difficult to simply “check a box” on this staff comment because “fostering a sense of
community” is subjective and does not appear to be a term that is within the regulations, or where any
criteria are provided to allow for clarity as to what that means for applicants. As such, it is likely not a
condition that can be required. Regardless, Applicant believes strongly that the project does create
community as that has been and continues to be our intent on this entire project including the Hillside
neighborhood and the balance of the Old Farm Lands that are simultaneously in the permitting process.
We believe our goals to activate our project as a true community and neighborhood are aligned with the
City’s, and we believe we have done so with the proposed development.
5. Staff Comment #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.”
As discussed at the hearing for this application, the Applicant has made a number of commitments and
adjustments to our initial submission in order to address the Kennedy Drive elevation. These include the
landscape improvements that are shown on conceptual designs, which include hardscaping, retaining
walls, the inclusion of a deck and boardwalk facility, a food truck hub, and barbeque patios all of which
will be outfitted with attractive seating, umbrellas, fire pits, lighting, and significant landscape plantings.
New trees and plantings will also be used to accentuate the project design. In discussion with the board
the items presented seemed agreeable. Given this, we have formalized the submission of those
elements. Please see Exhibits 010-011. Please also review Exhibit 020 and Exhibit 021. These are the
landscape plan concepts and vision sheets.
In terms of garage screening, the Applicant has presented a range of alternatives, these are outlined at
Exhibit 022, which proposes a number of different garage screening techniques. Applicant has not
confirmed which particular technique it will use at this time, but likely will employ a combination of
9
different types in the project for a varied and interesting approach. Lighting will be designed in
coordination with the architect to be sensitive to concerns regarding light pollution. We can provide
further details on the lighting at final plat. Currently elevations provided show a textured surface in
these locations as a placeholder. Applicant will make detailed presentations on each type of screening
and the materials proposed in landscape plans that will be submitted at final plat.
6. Staff Comment #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.”
As discussed at the hearing, this is the term used to describe the combination of grasses and plants that
will be installed in the gravel wetland, which over time will have the appearance of a meadow. Taller
grass and varied plant species, essentially.
7. Staff Comment #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.”
A pedestrian entrance has been added on the Kennedy Drive side of Lot 14. A patio and path shown at
the landscape concept sketch at Exhibit 010 provide this access, as requested. See Exhibit 008, Exhibit
010.
8. Staff Comment #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, 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.”
This comment is with regard to Lot 15. The response is substantially identical to Section II(5) above.
Please see that section for further details.
9. Staff Comment #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.”
Applicant has provided a sketch of this area at Exhibit 010. In addition to the numerous hardscape
elements, the amenity area with lighting, seating, stonescape and landscape, the Applicant is also
creating a community hub with an area where building management and residents could coordinate
with food trucks to have special events and foster community. There is a lot of grade change happening
in this area. Applicant believes that the mix of grade changes, buildings (of different height and scale),
hardscape, retaining walls, plantings, lighting and landscape lighting, public art displays, sidewalks,
building architecture and neighborhood signage, will create a street presence and neighborhood identity
for the Project. Specifics of this proposal will be provided in landscape plans presented at final plat.
10
10. Staff Comment #10: “Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant either installing a
hammerhead, turnaround at the north of Lot 15 or limiting the development on Lot 17 to an uncurbed
temporary driveway to allow temporary egress onto O’Brien Farm Road prior to development of a site
plan for Lot 17.”
Applicant is appreciative of the flexibility presented here to help accommodate future development
plans. However, it is not feasible for Applicant to embark on the Project proposed without the parking
planned and shown. Staff is correct that some of this parking is located on areas outside the Master
Plan. Even after the master plan area is expanded (there is a pending application continued several
times to do that expansion, which we can still alter if needed), some of the land needed for parking will
still be outside of the Master Plan area. This is intentional because the Applicant cannot fit any more
density units within the current Master Plan. Therefore, incorporating more land is simply removing
density and value from future areas that cannot be reclaimed.
The Phase II Preliminary Plat Application submitted to the City by Applicant on 8/18/20, will marry these
two concerns. That Application will incorporate the density of this land into the Phase II master plan,
and can then amend Lot 15 and Lot 13, to include all the land and parking proposed for their structures.
This Preliminary Plat application is proceeding on an almost identical track to this project and is as of
today, with the City for review. Applicant does not perceive an issue with the Board having all of the
information needed to make this decision as we move forward, as both applications will be with this
Board.
With that said, the Regulations explicitly allow for Applicant to propose parking only on Lot 17. A
commercial parking area is a conditional use, which can be reviewed and approved by the Board. The
owner of Lot 17, by this Application, is requesting that use and has affirmed they are wanting that use.
Therefore, the Board has full authority to grant the use requested, which will facilitate this Project. This
is not a premature restriction of Lot 17 as noted in staff comments. Rather, it is a proposed use on land
controlled by the applicant, that is permissible in the zoning district in which it is applied for. We would
look to the Board for the review criteria applicable, and can provide information needed for that review
as required.
There are 49 parking spaces proposed on Lot 17. While we discussed at the hearing that it would be
agreeable to propose these areas as temporary and build them in that way, with so many spaces being
impacted this would be problematic. At this time, and given that the full preliminary plat application for
Lot 17 has been filed, Applicant is hopeful that the dual tracks of this Project and the parallel project,
can allow for these decisions to be knit together. Applicant would suggest that we move forward in that
light, and that this issue be discussed in the context of both applications. If modifications to this Project
are needed given discussions in the Preliminary Plat for the Phase II Master Plan, we can still make
them. We will be permitting both of these together with you for the next year. We hope that this is a
workable path forward for this concern. While we understand this is not a typical process, it also needs
to be acknowledged that this is not a typical project due to its breadth and scale and therefore requires
some reasonable allowances, albeit ones that are allowed within the context of the Land Development
Regulations. We appreciate the Board’s consideration on this issue.
11. Staff Comment #11: “Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant what, if any, parking is proposed to
be reserved.”
11
As discussed at the hearing, parking spaces are not proposed to be reserved, though covered spaces will
be subject to an additional fee.
12. Staff Comment #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.”
While applicant appreciates that the City has set such low limits for parking, which may very well
facilitate some smaller projects willing to build at that standard, as discussed at the hearing, these limits
are well outside the industry standard of 1.5 parking spaces per apartment. This standard has been
used for many years to ensure parking is sufficient and in general appears to work well. With an
investment of this magnitude the Applicant is unable to reduce parking below what is currently
proposed/shown in the updated project plans and it also needs to be acknowledged that financing
considerations require adequate parking based upon existing market realities. At the hearing the Board
discussed and understood this perspective, which was also confirmed as the standard used by
Champlain Housing Trust in allocating parking to their projects. It should be noted that the Applicant
does not wish to build a single space more than is required for the number of units proposed due to the
expense, engineering and use of valuable land, but we also need to provide an appropriate level of
parking for our residents. We appreciate your understanding. If further information is needed with
regard to this issue please let us know.
13. Staff Comment #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.”
We discussed that these spaces will either be removed or made to be handicapped spaces prior to filing
preliminary plat. Given the number is so small this change can be accommodated. As outlined at
Section III below, Applicant does have questions regarding the application of this parking standard which
need to be addressed.
14. Staff Comment #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.”
Any spaces designated as compact would be 18’x8’. Applicant understands that the board is ok with
these dimensions if needed. With the understanding that spaces of this size are acceptable to the
Board, Applicant will work through the final planning and attempt to limit the spaces as much as
possible. It is our aim to accommodate all full-size spaces, however if efficiency requires the inclusion of
some smaller spaces, we appreciate that flexibility. It is the case that many cars of potential tenants will
easily fit in these smaller spaces and so rather than expand surface parking to gain a space and meet
parking requirements, if we can squeeze in another covered space by making a few parking spots
compact, it seems to make good sense for the Applicant and the City.
15. Staff Comment #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.”
12
As discussed, these doors are an error and will be removed. See updated floor plate plan for Lot 15 at
Exhibit 008.
16. Staff Comment #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.”
As discussed at the hearings, the existing terrain adjacent to Lot 14 provides a very nice transition. Lot
14 is also planned to be three stories over podium, stepping up to four stories over podium in the
remaining development. An aerial rendering attached as Exhibit 023 shows the proposed transition. As
you will see, the trees and smaller building provide a very effective transition, as acknowledged in the
hearing by the Board.
17. Staff Comment #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.”
This feature is discussed in detail in this supplemental material in response to several questions. The
gateway will be very attractive. Lots 14 and 15 will both be oriented toward Two Brothers Drive and will
both have entry tower features facing that street. A landscape concept sketch at Exhibit 010 provides
additional information on landscaping proposed. A number of structural and landscaping features are
designed to accentuate and make prominent this gateway into the project.
18. Staff Comment #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 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.”
As discussed at the hearing, the Applicant has taken a number of steps to reduce the visual impact of
the building proposed on Lot 15. While the building is significant, it spans terrain of varied grade, and
the structure itself jogs away from the pedestrian walkway and road, creating a lessened and varied
aesthetic along Kennedy Drive as one proceeds to the north. The aerial rendering attached at Exhibit
023 provides a nice perspective of how the building bends away from the intersection of Kennedy and
Two Brothers and adds a significant architectural feature roughly in the center of the building as it jogs
to the northeast. This was done to alleviate the western elevation. Significant other elements also add
to the architectural variety that reduces the impact of the large structure. These include a tiered deck
system proposed on the building façade, shown at Exhibit 010 and Exhibit 011. This also includes the
architecture proposed that has significant variation both in terms of elevation and also foundation
alignment. There are jogs in the foundation that break up the massing, as well as different parapets
which vary the roof line. Large amounts of glazing and high-quality materials. In addition to
landscaping and an increased set back from Kennedy to allow for stormwater. Updated elevations for
this building are attached at Exhibit 019 and correct some errors that were present in the original
drawings.
13
19. Staff Comment #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.”
Applicant will ensure that there are pedestrian connections in and out of the parking garages at the
street level and facilitating the disposal of trash. This is not an issue and will be addressed at final plat.
20. Staff Comment #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.”
This feedback is with regard to Lot 13 and Lot 15 and the shared waste disposal facility. Applicant
acknowledges that the pedestrian paths to this facility are not perfect. We will look to clean this up
prior to final plat as requested, and no changes are proposed at this time.
21. Staff Comment #21: “Staff recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant ways to create
coordinated spaces with species that provide the feeling of access for all residents, not just a single
building.”
Applicant will be providing full landscape drawings at final plat, which will include full planting plans.
Applicant welcomes this feedback and has provided it to the Project Landscape Architect. We will look
forward to presenting plans in line with this feedback at Final Plat.
22. Staff Comment #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.”
At the hearing we discussed this comment and requested specific feedback on areas where this could be
altered. It was our takeaway that the Board was ok with the building setbacks as proposed. The roads
curve in the development and so while some areas have larger setbacks, others are narrower. There is
also grading which must occur due to elevation changes between the roads and the buildings. For
instance, on the wider portion of the setback with Lot 13 and O’Brien Farm Road, the building actually
sits below the road and a drainage way is needed there. With the setbacks at Lot 10 and Lot 11 to Two
Brothers, grade changes must also be accommodated. Applicant believes these buildings present well
to the road and is happy to consider specific suggestions, but is not seeing easy locations to shift the
buildings closer given site constraints.
23. Staff Comment #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 usable, or will it be off limits to foot traffic?”
See response at Section II(6) above. The gravel wetland will not, generally, be available to foot traffic.
24. Staff Comment #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.”
14
Applicant agrees with the direction of this comment and has provided this direction to the Project
landscape architect for consideration in finalizing the design.
25. Staff Comment #25: “Staff recommends the Board bring this dichotomy to the applicant’s attention to be
addressed at the next stage of review.”
This issue, with regard to parking lot landscaping and site distances is very important and will be
addressed at the next stage of review as requested.
26. Staff Comment #26 and #27: “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. 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.”
Applicant clarified in the hearing that this comment meant the parking lots should be looked at on a
parking lot by parking lot basis, not that the parking requirements should be met on a lot by lot basis, in
consideration of the lot lines themselves. Applicant agrees this is a logical way to look at the parking
which is shared across lots in some instances. Applicant will provide this analysis at the next stage of
review.
27. Staff Comment #28: “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.”
Applicant has provided two large snow storage areas for Lot 15, which are indicated on the plans
submitted.
28. Staff Comment #29: “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. 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.”
Applicant has an approval for the construction of the roadways and sidewalks for this project. That
approval is attached here as Exhibit 024, Final Plat SD-17-17. This permit includes complete designs for
the road network of the Project. Those designs include an 8’ rec path as well as no green belt in areas
where parallel parking was planned on Two Brothers Drive. These roads are fully permitted currently
and can be built at any time. Applicant has assumed the same conditions in slight modifications made to
increase the amount of parallel parking. The addition of on street parking has been done as a
convenience for residents, delivery drivers and project visitors, and to facilitate a more urban feel. It will
15
also provide needed guest parking for residents of the single and two-family homes. The addition of
these large green belts cannot be supported in the current plan, with the parking proposed, and will
almost certainly have a contrary impact to what is argued for by the City in numerous staff comments
above. Namely, creating a more urban and inviting feel, not a suburban landscape. It would have the
effect of increasing setbacks with large suburban green belts, which we have been asked to reduce
further in other comments.
The text of Section 15.12M allows for alternative scenarios with the approval of the City Engineer.
Applicant will work with the City Engineer to review the proposal and will collaborate on any changes
prior to submission of the final plat in order to find an outcome that is approvable and works for the
Project plan.
29. Staff Comment #30: “Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to include a recreation path
along this roadway segment at the next stage of review.”
This staff comment does not line up with our recollection of the conversation with the bike and
pedestrian committee that we had early this year. Applicant does not recall this existing plan being
discussed at all, but rather a focus on the Phase II planning, specifically a connection from Kennedy Drive
to Technology Park. It is new information to the Applicant that the Bike and Pedestrian Committee is
requesting this connection.
While the Applicant appreciates it may be the current committee’s opinion that a path may be suitable
in this location, this specific issue is already decided. In Permit SD-17-17, attached as Exhibit 024, the
board approved a road layout without this connection. The road layout does however include a bike
lane, which is still contemplated. The reason is that the Bike and Pedestrian Committee at the time of
the original approval specifically wanted and requested that arrangement. While we understand that
the composition of a committee can change over time and therefore individual perspectives can change,
the fact of the matter is that we received approval based upon the committee’s direction and
recommendation at that time and our project and roadway has been planned around that direction.
The Applicant has provided an email below from the bike and pedestrian committee to the Board,
explaining their approval of our plan. While opinions change, we appreciate the Board holding to its
past decisions and precedent with regard to this matter, that was settled when SD-17-17 was issued.
Applicant relies on these decisions in planning for projects. No recreation path is proposed in this
location.
16
30. Staff Comment #31: Applicant will provide an updated lighting plan at the next stage of review in
accordance with this request.
31. Staff Comment #32 and #33: Applicant will work with the City to ensure that bike parking both long and
short term meets the requirements. Specific proposals to be clearly outlined at final plat.
III. Staff Report Dated July 15, 2020
1. Staff Comment #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.
In discussions on this topic with the Board, Applicant has demonstrated the various ways that the street-
level garage façade will be treated. These include adding doors (now shown on updated elevations), as
well as a variety of different screening types, which will enable an attractive and varied feel. Our
perception is that the Board has been receptive to this direction and to the treatment of these areas,
which exist due to site grading, as well as to create covered parking that has a significantly reduced site
impact from the surface parking alternative.
17
There appear to be no standards in the regulations with regard to sufficiency of indoor space. There are
also no requirements to include gyms or other amenities inside of buildings. The specific criterion cited
in this comment by staff, makes no mention of any of this, but instead focuses on adequate planting,
safe pedestrian movement and adequate parking areas. All of which are not being discussed here, as
they are being provided for. The Applicant is acutely aware of the level of amenities needed to make
our properties attractive to future tenants and we are financially invested in the success of these
buildings.
Absent any criteria with which to comply, we have made an attempt to increase the interior spaces
available because it was requested. Lot 10 and Lot 11 now include a maker space and pet wash facility
which is accessed from the street-side. Lot 10, Lot 11 and Lot 14 have all had their building common
lobby area expanded, facilitating a larger tenant lounge on each floor. We have also added a community
room to every building in the Project. Updated floor plans are provided at Exhibit 008. When coupled
with the extensive exterior amenities previously discussed, this seems to satisfy the concerns raised
here.
2. Staff Comment #2 and #3: “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. 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.”
As outlined above, we believe that the extensive public amenities and landscape, parks, rec paths,
sidewalks, fire pits, grills, food truck spaces, bocce courts, benches, sitting areas, walking paths and
planned landscaped plaza will knit this community together and will foster community. Applicant is
proposing public art in and around the development including in the large glass stair towers of each
building. Applicant is proposing extensive landscaping, interesting screening techniques, interior
amenity spaces and common rooms, glass store fronts, porches and entrance landings, exterior lighting
and landscape lighting and the list goes on. The lobby area on Lot 10, Lot 11 and Lot 14 has been
expanded in the new floor plans. A maker space has been added in all buildings save Lot 12, where a
large community room exists instead. In speaking with the Board, it seemed that the Project was
already well placed to receive positive feedback in this regard, but we have made more improvements in
the new plans, in specific response to the request to expand interior spaces. While no standards appear
to exist to judge this, and there appears to be no regulatory basis to request it, we are confident that the
changes made to date will ensure a dynamic and energized community and we hope the board agrees.
18
3. Staff Comment #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.”
See conversation above regarding Lot 11 and this criterion. Lot 10 is a mirror image. Applicant would
again reiterate that there appears to be no regulatory basis for the sufficiency of community fostering.
While the point may be moot as Applicant has made significant changes to address this concern, if the
Board is to require something it would seem some basis in regulation would be necessary. We would
appreciate some objective standards by which this request could be measured, should what we
provided here be deemed insufficient.
4. Staff Comment #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.”
Please see comments at Section III (1-3) above.
5. Staff Comment #6: “On July 7, 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.”
See Section I(7) above. As Applicant continues to final plat, it seems fair to assume that each building
may change slightly. The need for larger mechanical or maintenance spaces may change the unit count
by one on Lot 13, but allow for an increase of one on Lot 12 or vice-versa. Applicant would encourage
the Board to review the project in terms of larger concepts at this point, and unit mix and counts can be
confirmed at final plat. That being said, the current floor plan for Lot 12 is included at Exhibit 008. It
does include 51 apartments currently, with 49 being inclusionary, as outlined ay Section I (7) above. In
the current layout, this would be only two market rate apartments. As previously described siting all of
the inclusionary units in one building with no market rate units meets the letter of the regulation. Still,
it is the current intent as stated to potentially include some market units in that building as well.
6. Staff Comment #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.”
As shown on Exhibit 12, the building has been altered to provide an entrance to Lot 12 along the
northeast façade. This entrance is paired with a landscaped pavilion as shown at the landscape concept
sketch, Exhibit 010. Applicant has addressed this concern as requested.
7. Staff Comment #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.”
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
19
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.
8. Staff Comment #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 applicant has made adjustments to this façade in response to this request. Please see the updated
elevations at Exhibit 017. Applicant has expanded the landing, adding glazing, and including a window
into a workshop/maker space available on the lower level. The grading is also being adjusted to
minimize vertical concrete exposure. Applicant believes this issue has been addressed with the changes
now proposed.
9. Staff Comment #10: “Staff recommends that that Board review the proposed updates to this exterior
space at the continued hearing meeting.”
Applicant has provided a new conceptual rendering of the on-structure outdoor space of Lot 13. This
rendering includes features of similar type to those offered at the other buildings in the project. Please
also see Section I(15). This conceptual plan is attached as Exhibit 009.
10. Staff Comment #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.”
It is unclear what sort of recreational amenities are required inside the apartment buildings by the
Regulations. Applicant has modified building plans as outlined above to respond to feedback from the
Board regarding interior spaces. A community room is now included in every building, in addition to
other changes outlined above.
20
Other significant recreational amenities exist as well, and are outlined extensively in this submission.
The applicant believes that the extensive amenity package provided is more than adequate for the
marketplace, in fact, we believe our package of amenities well exceeds the standard for this area. We
appreciate the drive to develop these spaces and we have responded with what we believe to be a
meaningful, but also useful proposal.
11. Staff Comment #12: “Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to consider how this space may be
used prior to closing the hearing.”
Please see comments for Section III(12) below. Applicant is unsure what regulation prohibits these
parking spaces, located to the side of the building.
12. Staff Comment #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. 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.”
Applicant is unsure exactly what spaces this staff comment refers to. This item was not discussed at the
last hearing. It seems as though Staff are stating that the requirement for parking at Section 14.06(B)
prohibits parking spaces that break the plane of the front face of the building even if they are located on
the side of the building. However, Applicant is unable to locate this text in the Regulations.
The specific relevant regulation Applicant found reads: “Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of
buildings.” The parking proposed for Lot 13 is to the side of the building located on Lot 13. When you
look at the building, the parking is physically to the right side of the structure. The ordinance does not
state that parking located to the side must be located behind the plane of the façade. This would be a
separate and different statement than the language of the ordinance. If this reading of the regulation is
proposed by the Board, it would result in the removal of about 19 parking spaces. Spaces that are very
well shielded from view given topography. Spaces that are logically located adjacent to the building and
on the side of the structure as required.
The ordinance language does also give a little more color as to its concerns. Section 14.06(B)(2)(b)
states: “The development review board may approve parking between a public street and one or more
buildings” (emphasis added) for several reasons. This second section is important because the
regulation is acknowledging when parking in front can be allowed, and it is specifically only concerning
itself with locations where the parking is between a building and the street. The logical reason for this,
is that in areas where the parking is not between the building and the street, the parking is on the side
of the building. If the parking is on the side of the building, it is permissible and a special exception is
not needed.
If the Regulation were to require no parking between the plane of the building and the street, even on
the side of the building, it would need to be re-written in both instances quoted. The regulation would
need to read, that parking between the plane of the building and the public street is prohibited, even to
the sides of the structure. It would also need to say that parking could be allowed between the building
and the street, or to break the plane of the building on the side, in specific instances. As written, the
ordinance is specific and clear, parking must be to the rear or side, and it may be between the structure
and the road only as allowed. Given the seemingly clear meaning, we hope that the Board can provide
some clarity as to what requirement is being asserted in asking to remove the logically located and well
21
screened parking proposed, which is critical to the Project being constructed efficiently and to realizing
the density of the land involved.
The Applicant would also wonder how this applies to parking located on a different lot than the
structure itself, and which is being permitted as a conditional use, which is exclusively parking and which
is not necessarily tied to any building. The majority of the spaces proposed are on Lot 17, where no
structures exist, but where commercial parking is a permitted use that ostensibly can be built regardless
of whether a building exists or not. Parking located on the same lot as the structure proposed, is both to
the side of the building and also behind the plane of the building.
13. Staff Comment #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.”
The Applicant has proposed ample on-street parking which would be available for use of the single-
family and two-family homes. This is part of the reason Applicant has proposed that additional parking,
and why we are hopeful that we can work with the Director of Public Works and the Board to find a way
to permit the parking as drawn without additional green ways. The on-street parking will be public, and
will be available to all residents of the neighborhood.
14. Staff Comment #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.”
The dimensions of all compact spaces mentioned are 18’x8’. As discussed above, the Applicant felt that
these spaces were useful in some instances to facilitate additional covered parking (in lieu of surface
parking alternatives). Many residents drive smaller cars and having a couple of spaces for smaller cars
that enables less surface coverage seems like a reasonable and environmentally friendly goal. We
appreciate the Board was understanding of this and it did not seem that changes to this plan were
requested.
15. Staff Comment #16: This comment pointed out two proposed retaining walls that were less than five
feet from the lot lines. Both retaining walls were requested to be removed. Both retaining walls will be
removed prior to the next stage of review as requested.
16. Staff Comment #17: “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.”
Applicant agrees that screening this parking will be important and will provide sufficient screening in
landscape plans developed for final plat.
17. Staff Comment #18: A comment similar to this was discussed in detail at Section II(10) above. Please see
responses in that section.
22
18. Staff Comment #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.”
Applicant will provide easy access to the trash facility on Lot 10 for tenants and will make this clear in
the next stage of review.
19. Staff Comment #20: “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”
Applicant regrets that this portion of the narrative was not clear. The trash building contains both a
large trash facility with compactors, as well as a large interior space that is not yet programmed. The
trash facility is planned with certainty. At this point Applicant is still deciding whether the other half of
the building is best suited as a mail and parcel facility, or a bike barn. As applicant works through
detailed architectural plans working toward final plat, it will become apparent which use is necessary,
and the remaining half of the building will be programmed. Applicant does not perceive that confirming
this detail at this point in the process is critical. Applicant will look to the board for confirmation on that
fact.
20. Staff Comment #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.”
At this point landscape sketches provided are only conceptual. Applicant will work with the landscape
architect to use shade trees in lieu of dense hedges where possible and is happy to work with the Board
on this at final plat.
21. Staff Comment #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.”
This comment with regard to the eastern corner of Lot 10 is noted. It does not appear that any
additional information is required.
22. Staff Comment #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.”
This is an area we plan to use for snow storage, but we are happy to look at uses that will work with that
winter reality and will provide more information at final plat as requested.
23. Staff Comment #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
23
of review, including along O’Brien Farm Road where there are currently proposed two disallowed parking
spaces, as discussed above.”
Applicant will provide this feedback to the landscape architect to coordinate the final landscape plans
for the next stage of review.
24. Staff Comment #25: “Staff recommends the Board require to take the change in elevation into
consideration when considering plans for this buffer.”
This is noted and will be considered in the final plat submission.
25. Staff Comment #26: “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.”
This issue on Lot 10 will be evaluated leading up to final plat. Options to address this may be some sort
of retaining wall or grading change, or re-routing the path if necessary. Applicant can also consider it
will have the ability to salt paths in managing the property. This is the only snow storage location of
sufficient size for this lot and so removing the snow storage is not viable. That said, we do believe a
workable solution can be developed and we will make that proposal at final plat.
26. Staff Comment #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.”
Applicant does believe that this is the case. The landscaping or landscape features will need to be
carefully designed, but with this in mind, Applicant intends to program all the areas of the site in order
to create the best project possible. While snow storage is a reality, it need not be something that
devalues large swaths of the site during the 8 months of the year when large snow piles are not a
concern.
27. Staff Comment #27: “Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to replace
one of the proposed sidewalks with a recreation path.”
Applicant has provided a discussion on this question at Section 2(29) above. We believe that the Board
recognized the commitments made in prior applications at our last hearing and we appreciate that. The
characteristics of the Two Brothers connection have been in place for some time, and we hope that
these will be left out of the current permit.
Applicant does want to clarify its request with regard to the recreation path proposed in the Project,
which we did discuss at a couple of hearings. This request is that while we will maintain the rec path
connection and width on the east side of O’Brien Farm Road, we would like to change the material to
concrete. We also would like to use tree-wells in the concrete to provide landscape. While we
recognize this is not a true rec-path, it is a wide and safe avenue for pedestrians. Applicant is cognizant
of the fact that in this location and with the density and features proposed (plazas, barbeques, fire pits,
benches, storefronts, pedestrian connections) having an uninhibited rec path with folks speedily
24
recreating would not be a safe situation. The proposal to change the material and add trees will enable
the same safe movement, but will create an awareness of the need to slow down recreation for the few
hundred feet around the major four-way intersection proposed. We believe this proposal was well
received by the Board, and we will be clarifying it at Final Plat.
As always, we appreciate the Board and Staff taking the time to review this application and we
appreciate your consideration and efforts in making this project a success for the City and the Project residents.
We are looking forward to answering any final questions on September 15th, and will look forward to the
conversation. In advance of that, should you have any questions please feel free to call or email our office.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development
Enclosures
Hillside & O'Brien Farm Lot Coverage Calculations and Setbacks31-Aug-20Existing Master Plan Lot # Area (sq.ft.) Area (acres) Building Area (sq.ft.)Building Coverage (%)Roads/Walks/Drives (sq.ft.)All Impervious Area (sq.ft.)Total Coverage (%)Front SetbackSide Setback3 88665 2.04 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 4 46339 1.06 0 0.0 0 0 0.05 380323 8.73 120899 31.8 21170 142069 37.46 132237 3.04 0 0.0 1960 1960 1.57 106494 2.44 37513 35.2 7495 45008 42.38 202366 4.65 31603 15.6 13877 45480 22.59 79777 1.83 23606 29.6 6843 30449 38.210 40634 0.93 12800 31.5 16200 29000 71.4 7 ft 58 ft11 51168 1.17 12800 25.0 18000 30800 60.2 11 ft 75 ft12 68444 1.57 15550 22.7 27920 43470 63.5 15 ft 27 ft13 89361 2.05 45035 50.4 30715 75750 84.8 6 ft 8 ft14 47162 1.08 12800 27.1 20230 33030 70.0 10 ft 37 ft15 101835 2.34 31110 30.5 16360 47470 46.6 69 ft 23 ftROWs 307738 7.06 0 0.0 205211 205211 66.7Total 1742543 40.00 343716 19.7% 385981 729697 41.9%Master Plan Coverage Restrictions Allowed Proposed Is Proposal Compliant with Master Plan Permit Coverage Allowance Total Building Coverage In Entire Master Plan 35.00% 19.7% YESTotal Site Coverage In Master Plan 50.00% 41.9% YES Additional Lands Not In Master Plan Lot # Area (sq.ft.) Area (acres)Building Area (sq.ft.)Building Coverage (%)Roads/Walks/Drives (sq.ft.)All Impervious Area (sq.ft.)Total Coverage (%)Front SetbackSide Setback17 188312 4.32 0 0.0 24780 24780 13.2% NA NATOTAL 188312 4.32 0 0.0 24780.0 24780.0 13.2%C1 LR Coverage Limitations Allowed Proposed Is Proposal Compliant With C1-LR Coverage Limitations Total Building Coverage 40.00% 0.0YES All Impervious 70.00% 13.2% YES Zoning District Coverage Square Feet Land Square Feet Building Pecent Building Percent Allowed Square Feet All Percent All Percent Allowed All R1 47425 5080 10.7% 15 5723 12.1% 25R12 1555673 326365 21.0% 40 700628 45.0% 60C1-LR 37182 13271 35.7% 40 23346 62.8% 70
/RW3DUN$UHD DF/RW $UHD DF/RW$UHD DF/RW$UHD DF/RW$UHD DFUHV/RW$UHD DFUHV/RW$UHD DFUHV8QLWV8QLWV8QLWV8QLWV/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF5HYLVHG/RW$UHD DF
Hillside At O'Brien Farm Master Planned Community Multi-Family Preliminary Plat Summary Building Height, Footage and Unit Breakdown Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15Building Type Market Apartment Market ApartmentInclusionary Apartment Market Apartment Market Apartment Market ApartmentGross SF (w/out Parking)49048 49048 54404 135018 36786 117496# of Units44 44 48 118 33 103Building Height # Stories44 4 4 3 4Building Height Feet From Finished Floor of first Residential Level 49.25 49.25 49.25 49.25 38.08 49.25Building Height Feet From Garage Finished Floor 60.75 60.75 60.75 60.75 49.58 60.75Building Elevation 363.5 366.5 346.5 353 333.5 342.5Average Pre-Construction Elevation 369.8 372.1 345.8 355.8 331.4 346.7Building Height Per Regulations (Elevation Less Pre-Con Grade)54.45 55.15 61.45 57.95 51.68 56.55Height from Finished Floor of Basement to Surface of Floor Above11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50Elevation of Floor Above Basement 375.00 378.00 358.00 364.50 345.00 354.00Height of Floor Above Basement Relative to Pre-Con Grade 5.20 5.90 12.20 8.70 13.60 7.30Applicable District Height Limit 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00Height Waiver Required29.45 30.15 36.45 32.95 26.68 31.55
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”08.28.2020HILLSIDE AT O’BRIEN FARM | AMENITY DECK CONCEPTPEDESTAL PAVERSGAS FIRE PIT36” HIGH FUSE LINEAR PLANTERFOR SEPARATION FROM APT.OUTDOOR KITCHEN COUNTER WITH (2) GAS GRILLSOUTDOOR KITCHEN COUNTER WITH (2) GAS GRILLS36” HIGH FUSE LINEAR PLANTERMODERN ALUMINUM AND WOOD PERGOLAWITH LOUNGE CHAIRSBOCCE COURTUMBRELLA TABLE36” HIGH FUSE LINEAR PLANTERFOR SEPARATION FROM APT.30” HIGH FUSE CURVILINEAR PLANTERARTIFICIAL TURF ON PEDESTALSGAS FIREPITLOLL CHAIRS
MAKE ENTRY DRIVESTEEPER TO FLATTENOUT PLAZA AREAMEADOWRETAINING WALL GRILLING STATIONS PICNIC TABLES BUILDINGLOT 14BUILDINGLOT 13BUILDINGLOT 12LEASING OFFICE BUILDINGLOT 15BOARDWALKEL. 342.00REALIGNED ENTRY RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAILBOCCE COURT WITH OVERHEAD STRING LIGHTS CAFE TABLES AND CHAIRS FIRE PITADIRONDACK CHAIRS PARKING FOR FOOD TRUCK COUNTER WITH STOOLS CONCRETE PAVING WITH INTERGRAL COLOR+350+349346 ++349+344TWO BROTHERS DRIVE CONC. STAIRS/CONNECTION TO PATHCANOPYPICNC TABLESADIRONDACK CHAIRSCONCRETE SEAT WALL WITHBUILT IN GAS GRILL
GAS GRILLSCOMMUNITY DECKBENCH1:20 WALKWAYLAWNGRAVEL WETLANDFUTURE GRAVEL WETLAND AREAMEADOW342 ++ 354+ 342+ 348+ 348BUILDINGLOT 15KENNEDY DRIVE
REGRADE TO 2:1 SLOPETO CREATE LEVEL AREA+ 377PICNIC TABLES+ 377RETAINING / SEAT WALLBUILT IN GAS GRILLADIRONDACK CHAIRS & FIRE PITBUILDINGLOT 10
STRAIGHTEN OUT PARKING LOT TO PARALLEL BUILDINGLAWNGASGRILLCOVERED PAVILLIONORNAMENTALGRASSESPICNIC TABLESIN STONEDUSTCOLORED CONCRETE PAVINGRETAINING WALL377+ALIGN WALKWAYWITH ENTRY+383REGULATIONBOCCE COURTADIRONDACK CHAIRSOVERHEAD STRINGLIGHTSBENCHESBUILDINGLOT 11
7.1.20HILLSIDE AT O’BRIEN FARM | AMENITY AREAS IMAGE SHEETSOCIAL ACTIVITIES LIKE BOCCEDEFINE SPACE WITH OVERHEAD STRING LIGHTSPROVIDE STRAGIC SPACE FOR FOOD TRUCK WITH ADJACENT SEATINGBUILT IN GAS GRILLGAS FIRE PIT AND ALL - WEATHER ADIRONDACK CHAIRSSPECIAL PAVINGALL WEATHER PICNIC TABLES
7.1.20HILLSIDE AT O’BRIEN FARM | FOUR CORNERS IMAGE SHEETSEATWALLSVARIETY OF PAVING MATERIALS TO DELINEAT SPACESMOVEABLE CAFE TABLES AND CHAIRSSEATING ALCOVESINTERSECTION: BRICK PAVER CROSSWALKS WITH TERRACESBENCHES
7.1.20HILLSIDE AT O’BRIEN FARM | MEADOW AND GARAGE SCREENING IMAGE SHEETPERFORATED METAL SCREENSMETAL FABRICMEADOWSGRAVEL WETLANDSGREEN SCREEN BUILDING MOUNTEDGREEN SCREEN BUILDING FREE STANDINGWOOD SCREEN