HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-20-16 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (82)
1
1 of 13
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP_2020‐05‐19.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 13, 2020
Plans received: April 7, 2020
255 Kennedy Drive
Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐20‐16
Meeting date: May 19, 2020
Owner/Applicant
O’Brien Farm Road, LLC
1855 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.
164 Main Street
Colchester VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0970‐00255
Residential 12, Commercial 1‐LR, and Residential 1‐PRD Zoning Districts
Traffic Overlay District T‐1 and T3, Transit Overlay District
39.16 acres
Location Map
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
2
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD‐20‐16 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously
approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sf of office space. The phase
consists of six (6) four story multi‐family residential buildings with a total of 342 dwelling units, of which
48 are proposed inclusionary units, and an automatic offset of 48 additional market rate units, for a
total of 390 dwelling units and underground parking, and a 1,100 sf accessory structure, 255 Kennedy
Drive.
1. The above project description differs from the warned project description because of a
misunderstanding about the proposed inclusionary units. Staff recommends the Board hear the
application and continue the hearing to no sooner than June 16 to allow the project notice to be re‐
issued.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received master plan approval in 2016 (#MP‐16‐03). Staff considers the proposed project
does not trigger any of the criterion for master plan amendment.
The Board reviewed sketch plan application #SD‐18‐34 for this project on February 5, 2019. At that
hearing, the Board’s discussion focused on the location of open space, and architecture and aesthetics
particularly as it pertains to the requested height waiver.
CONTEXT
The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1‐LR, and Residential 1‐PRD Zoning Districts. The
project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts T‐1 and T‐2 as well as the Traffic Overlay District. The portion
of the property that is the subject of this application crosses all three zoning districts though the
majority is in the Residential 12 district. The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site
plan standards, and the standards of the applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses.
The Project has received master plan approval for the overall Project’s wetland impacts, pedestrian
access to abutting properties, and pedestrian circulation, street layout, and open space. No changes are
proposed to these approved elements therefore this sketch plan review omits discussion of them.
The prior phase approved 118 units in single family and two family homes. This application includes 390
units, for a total of 508 units. This application also includes 3,500 square feet of office space located in
one of the multifamily buildings.
As discussed below, this phase of the project, submitted on April 7th, is subject to draft Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations in effect pending Council action. The Inclusionary Zoning requirements apply to site
plans and preliminary or final plats submitted following public notice of the amendments. Where the
Inclusionary Zoning requirements allow for an “offset” of additional market rate units to compensate for
the costs of providing inclusionary units, these offset units may exceed the total number of dwelling
units in an approved Master Plan without triggering an amendment to the Master Plan
COMMENTS
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
3
3 of 13
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on April 7, 2020 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
In recognition of this being a large project proposing to construct 390 units of housing and
encompassing greater than 12 acres of land, and in recognition of the need to allow time for review
other pending applications, Staff has focused these comments on overall standards and a handful of
site‐specific standards. Generally, most applicable standards other than specific site plan standards are
addressed herein, with minor exceptions as noted.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss the standards reviewed herein to the extent time allows, and
then continue the meeting to a future hearing to review additional standards. Where it is clear the
applicant understands the needed modification, Staff recommends the Board limit discussion at this
hearing date and instead direct the applicant to present the requested change at a future hearing.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Lot Size
The applicant has proposing to reconfigure the previously approved property boundaries as shown on plan
sheet PL‐1. The involved lots are lots 10‐15 and 17, though only lots 11‐15 and 17 are proposed to be
modified. All lots are proposed to be above the minimum lot size for the zoning district.
3. It is not clear from the provided plans how Lot 11 is proposed to be modified. Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to update their plat to clearly reflect the existing and proposed lot boundaries
for Lot 11 prior to closing the hearing.
Lot Coverage
As mentioned above, the project is located in the R‐12, C1‐LR and R1‐PRD zoning districts, though the
majority of the project is located in the R12. The master plan approved maximum overall coverage of 50%,
and a maximum building coverage of 35%. 15.02A(4)(b) prohibits the lot coverage in each zoning district
from exceeding the maximum allowable in that zoning district. Maximum coverages for the involved zoning
districts are as follows.
District Max Lot Coverage Max Building Coverage
R12 60% 40%
C1‐LR 70% 40%
R1‐PRD 25% 15%
The applicant has prepared a table of coverage by lot, but as a PUD, staff notes that lot coverage only must
be met on an overall zoning district by zoning district basis, and is not related to lots.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that allowable coverages are met on
a zoning district by zoning district basis prior to closing the hearing.
It appears based on a note on sheet C‐2 the applicant may be requesting that the Board allow the
requirements of the R12 zoning district to be applied to the involved area within the R1‐PRD zoning district
as allowed under 3.03C Split Lots.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
4
4 of 13
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to clearly show the specific limit of their request on
the project plans in order for the Board to determine whether to accept the request, and to allow for
accurate recordkeeping as part of the final plat application.
Setbacks
The master plan approved a front setback waiver to 6 feet for building greater than five stories and 20 feet
for buildings less than five stories. No statement was made as to the setback for buildings with exactly five
stories, though Staff infers that this waiver was meant to apply to buildings with exactly five stories. No
waiver was granted for side setbacks (10 ft in the R12 and C1‐LR) or rear setbacks (30 ft in the R12 and C1‐
LR). All involved parcels have two fronts and two sides, with the exception of Lot 10 which has three fronts
and one side.
The applicant has stated in their cover letter that five buildings will have four habitable stories, and one
level of subsurface, or partially subsurface, parking. The building on Lot 14 will have three habitable stories
and one level of subsurface parking. A parking level counts as a story if the level above is an average of 4‐
feet above average preconstruction grade or being exposed more than 12 feet at any point. The applicant
has stated that they believe the 6 foot front setback applies to all but one of their proposed buildings.
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the provided “Building Height, Footage
and Unit Breakdown” table to indicate finish floor elevation and update the number of stories of each
building based on the calculation in the definition of story prior to closing the hearing.
7. Once the number of stories has been established, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
specifically enumerate where additional setback waivers are requested based on determination of
number of stories and front and side yards prior to closing the hearing.
Maximum height is 35 ft for flat roofs in the R12 district and in the C1‐LR district. The applicant has
indicated that they are requesting a waiver for each of the buildings for heights between 52 and 69 feet
above average preconstruction grade.
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 and
landscaping to determine whether they will preliminarily grant the applicant’s requested height
waivers.
B) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING
City Council has warned amendment LDR‐19‐13A to the LDR to include requirements for inclusionary
housing (LDR‐19‐13A, warned in the Other Paper on March 26, 2020 for City Council hearing. Pursuant to
24 VSA 4449(d), applications must be heard under the proposed regulations pending Council consideration
and action. This application was submitted on April 7, 2020 therefore the inclusionary zoning requirements
apply.
18.01C Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered for
rent shall be Inclusionary Rental Units.
Inclusionary rental units are units the rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for
a household with a gross annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the
Burlington‐South Burlington MSA and shall remain perpetually affordable.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
5
5 of 13
The master plan approval includes 458 residential dwelling units, of which 118 were approved in the first
final plat. This application includes an additional 390 residential dwelling units. The applicant has stated in
their cover letter that they have included 48 units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI, defined as Inclusionary
Units) as required under 18.01C(1) of the warned LDR amendments for rental units. For each required
inclusionary unit, the applicant is awarded one additional “offset” unit above the base density for the
project. Addition of offset units does not require amendment of the approved master plan.
Staff considers the applicant has made errors in their calculation of inclusionary units and offset units. The
applicant has 340 units remaining in their master plan approval, which the applicant is proposing to
construct with this application. They are required to provide 15% of all rental units as inclusionary, which
for 340 units is 51 units. The applicant is proposing to provide only 48 inclusionary units.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide three additional inclusionary units. If the
applicant adds three inclusionary units, they may add up to 51 offset units, which would make their
proposed 390 units allowable without amending the master plan.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off‐site construction is approved under Subsection E(1)(b)
Offsite Constriction of this article.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall
layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in
a single building or multiple buildings.
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and
architectural design detail quality as those of the market rate units in the development . The
exterior amenities and landscaping provided for the inclusionary units shall be similar to
those provided for the market rate units in the development. However, the exterior
dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior
amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of
inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1‐bedroom units,
900 square feet for 2‐bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more
bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less
than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the
Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average (mean)
Habitable Area of the market rate units.
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly
market rate duplexes and/or multi‐family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary
units developed as part of a predominantly‐single‐family housing development may be
accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the
appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary
units.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
6
6 of 13
(vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer
than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or
more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative
Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the
differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to
inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit.
(viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially
constructed as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No
more than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.
10. The applicant is proposing to locate 48 inclusionary units in a single building. Assuming the
deficiency in number of units can be remedied within the same building, Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to demonstrate how the location of these units meets these criteria.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units.
The applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development
and occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review
Board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based
on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site
constraints, approve a plan allowing non‐concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose how they will comply with this
criterion at final plat.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
12. The applicant has received preliminary water allocation, and has provided an estimate of
wastewater flows. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to apply for and
obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to applying for final plat.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on April 28, 2020 and
offers the following comments.
General:
“All water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the Champlain
Water District Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and
Appurtenances, current edition, henceforth CWD Specifications.”
All Ductile Iron pipe, hydrant barrel, and fittings for new water lines and appurtenances
shall be installed with V‐Bio Enhanced Polyethylene Pipe encasement. See CWD
Specifications for details.
The project shall be constructed, completed, maintained, and operated in accordance
with the approved plans. No changes shall be made in the project without the written
approval of the appropriate CWD Division.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
7
7 of 13
When a pipe material is specifically noted on the approved project drawings, the
contractor/developer shall not have the option of utilizing any other pipe material.
Sheet C‐4
All individual building fire service lines shall be tapped directly into the water main.
Multiple building fire services shall not be shared from a single tap.
All building fire services shall have a separate domestic water service shut off outside the
building, with the outside shut off placed in an accessible location. The domestic water
service line may be tapped off the fire service line. The domestic service line shall be
sized according to usage demands.
13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate the comments of the
South Burlington Water Department into their plans at final plat.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
An erosion prevention and sediment control plan is a requirement of final plat. Staff considers
the Board will review this condition at that stage.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any
technical review by City staff or consultants.
The master plan found that traffic impacts should be evaluated for each phase of the project.
The applicant has submitted a traffic impact memo prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated
2/5/2020 which concludes the phase that is the subject of this application (phase 2) will
generate 146 fewer trips than were estimated in the 2016 Traffic Impact Study (TIS), from 315
trips to 169 trips. The 2016 TIS concluded that a signal was warranted at the intersection of
the new street proposed by the project (Generations Way) and Kennedy Drive. This signal
was proposed to include a new left turn lane on Kennedy Drive as well as right and left turn
lanes on Generations Way onto Kennedy Drive. Based on a quick review of the 2016 TIS, it
appears phase 2 was assumed to generate approximately half of the trips at that new
intersection.
14. Since phase 2 trips are now projected to be so much lower than were estimated in 2016,
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to evaluate whether the proposed
intersection geometry is still appropriate.
The applicant is proposing six head‐in parking spaces along the southern side of Two Brothers
Drive. At sketch, the Board provided the applicant with feedback that this configuration was
problematic and advised the applicant to consider parallel parking.
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.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
8
8 of 13
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features
on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
Wetland impacts were approved as part of the master plan. No changes to the approved
impacts are proposed.
There are two areas where existing trees are proposed to be retained in the vicinity of work
proposed for this project, one east of Wetland “E” and west of Lots 12 & 14, and one between
Kennedy Drive and Lot 15. The master plan approved the general impacts to these areas.
16. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to provide a plan showing protection
for these trees to remain at final plat. Staff considers such information can be incorporated
into the required erosion prevention and sediment control plans.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the
location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII
of these Regulations.
Visual compatibility of the proposed development will be discussed in conjunction with Site
Plan Review Standards 14.06B and 14.06C. Of note, Comprehensive Plan strategy #112
prioritizes “Review the City’s Land Development Regulations to encourage or require
development along Kennedy Drive to include significant landscaping and/or forested blocks
along the roadway in keeping with existing patterns of development.” While Comprehensive
Plan strategies are not a requirement, as a PUD, compliance with this strategy would be a way to
shown innovation.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural
resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be
dedicated to the City of South Burlington.
The general configuration of open spaces was preliminarily approved at the master plan level.
At the sketch plan meeting on this phase, the Board had a robust discussion of the
programming of open spaces to be included in this area, asking that the applicant provide
small useable open spaces for each building. It appears the applicant is proposing a small
open space at each of the four corners of the intersection of O’Brien Farm Road and Two
Brothers Drive, and a larger open space area within the “U” of the Lot 13 building. While
these areas support good entry design, they are not designed as places to have a family picnic
or read a book outside. The building on Lot 15 does not appear to have any open space area.
Sidewalk and recreation path connections to other programmed open spaces in the master
plan area are included. Other open spaces are shown as grassy suburban areas. Staff
recommends that with this density, the Board should discuss with the applicant the need to
include open spaces to fit the urban form. Suggestions include
‐ creation of lawn areas near stormwater treatment practices
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
9
9 of 13
‐ use of empty spaces adjacent to buildings to create urban pocket parks, barbeque areas,
and small nooks for residents’ enjoyment using benches, seating walls, and permeable
pavers
‐ Create top‐floor spaces like those found at other apartment buildings in South
Burlington
‐ Show clear access to the existing stormwater park loop west of building 14 and
consider adding amenities to that space
‐ Show a plan to connect to the parks in the pending master plan to the southeast
The applicant has indicated the open space within Lot 13 will be a swimming pool. Any
swimming pool must meet the safety requirements of Article 13, which Staff considers can be
reviewed at final plat.
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.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions.
The Fire Chief has not yet reviewed the plans. Staff recommends the Board defer review of
this criterion to a continued hearing or final plat depending on when comments are received
from the Fire Chief.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this
standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
The Director of Public Works has not yet reviewed the plans.
See criterion 9 below for infrastructure comments. See criterion 11 below for comments
related to stormwater.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and
type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing for discussion of roadway design
standards.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
10
10 of 13
Staff considers this Project meets the goals of Northwest Quadrant Objectives and Strategies
as they pertain to access to neighborhood parks, allowing infill development with a focus on
the replacement of small single‐family affordable homes that have been bought and
demolished under the Airport’s property acquisition program, and establishing a community
vision for the future of this area. Staff considers this criterion met.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers that the Project triggers the Stormwater Management Standards of Section
12.03. The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the application on May 6, 2020
and offers the following comments.
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as
stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). Also, the project proposes to create more than 1 acre of impervious
area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater
permit and construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The
applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction.
2. On Sheet D‐7: Revise the Stormwater System Maintenance Schedule to include language
specific to the maintenance of gravel wetlands.
3. On Sheet D‐8: There are 6” Bar Guards buried in the gravel wetland. Has this design been
successfully been installed elsewhere, without any issue of clogging?
4. On Sheet D‐9: Specify the elevation of the 1.0” orifice in the 4” cap of Outlet Structure B,
as the elevation is not located at the invert of the 4” PVC pipe, as it is in Outlet Structure
C. Alternatively, the 4” PVC pipe could be revised to an invert elevation equal to the 1”
orifice.
5. Landscape Concept sheets are quite general. Provide more detailed landscaping plans
around the gravel wetlands in a future application to ensure compliance with the
Vermont Stormwater Management Manual.
6. On Sheet C‐7: This plan lacks detail on how runoff is collected from the subsurface of
Gravel Wetland #2 Cell #2 and routed to Outlet Structure C, without bypassing
treatment.
7. In the Stormwater Calculations narrative, it notes that half of the soils were modeled as
“B” soils, rather than “A” soils, due to the presence of groundwater 3’ below the surface.
Please provide reference to any literature that backs this method. Revising the “B” soils
to be modeled as “A” soils in the Standard Compliance Workbook results in the Pre‐
Development 100‐Year Storm peak runoff rate to be closer to 6.4 cfs, rather than
18.09 cfs as modeled by the applicant. Is the increased runoff from the site actually the
result of steep slopes and not groundwater 3’ below the surface? Is the slope already
accounted for in the shorter time of concentration?
8. The project proposes infiltration trenches at a depth lower than the seasonal high
groundwater table described by the applicant in the previous comment. If infiltration has
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
11
11 of 13
been determined to be infeasible due to a high groundwater table, the applicant should
remove any proposed infiltration trenches that have not been constructed yet and
remove them from the modeling.
9. In accordance with section 12.03.D(1) of the City’s Land Development Regulations
(LDRs), please include sub‐watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all
stormwater treatment practices.
10. Please provide information to determine compliance with section 12.03.E(3) of the City’s
LDRs.
11. In a future application, please provide the HydroCAD file for review.
12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the Assistant Stormwater
Superintendent’s comments as part of the final plat application.
D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
See above for a discussion of the Project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
Staff considers there are four initial topics related to relationships between structures and site.
1. Relationship of lots 14 and 15 to Kennedy Drive: The Lincoln Brown renderings suggest that
there would be units on the first floor facing Kennedy Drive (and 3 floors above it) but the
floor plans and elevations show a parking garage with “holes” at the street. A strong street
presence is a high priority.
19. Staff recommends the Board discuss the applicant’s intent with these buildings.
2. Relationship of the building on Lot 15 to Two Brothers Drive
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
12
12 of 13
a. The City has rarely permitted an underground entry facing the main street.
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.
b. The building has no street presence on Two Brothers Drive.
21. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider an entry at the corner
c. This building is a gateway. There is a relatively large open space between the
underground parking entry and the street.
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.
3. Building entries: Building entries on Lots 10‐13 are only provided at corners, resulting in
what Staff considers to be an abrupt transition between the smaller residential buildings in
Phase 1 and this project.
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.
4. Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use: Staff notes that small commercial spaces are now
permitted in the R12 with a minor master plan amendment (see LDR 13.28).
24. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to consider this possibility to enhance the
neighborhood feel one of the corners of the buildings at Two Brothers Drive and O’Brien
Farm Road.
14.06B(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
Parking is required to be located to the rear and sides of buildings. Parking on it’s own lot
without a building is considered commercial parking. The project is subject to minimum
parking requirements for the multifamily buildings. The applicant has generally provided
parking to the sides and rear, with the exception of a large area of parking east of Lot 13,
which is also on a separate lot and partially within a different zoning district.
25. Staff recommends the Board discuss the details of the proposed parking at a continued
hearing.
26. Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing for discussion of the remaining site plan review
standards of 14.06 and 14.07, including those pertaining to parking, height and scale, access to abutting
properties, utilities, waste disposal, landscaping, stormwater, and roadways and circulation, and for a
detailed site plan review of each lot.
#SD‐20‐16
Staff Comments
13
13 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Board and Staff to address the issues identified herein,
and that the Board continue the hearing to consider the remaining criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner