HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-20-16 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (4)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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