Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-008 CU-22-01 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (16) 1 1 of 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP-22-008 CU-22-01_255 Kennedy Dr_SC_2022-05-04.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 27, 2022 Plans received: February 3, April 19, 2022 255 Kennedy Drive Site Plan Application #SP-22-008 and Conditional Use Application #CU-22-01 Meeting date: May 4, 2022 Owner/Applicant O’Brien Home Farm, LLC 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Krebs & Lansing 164 Main Street, Suite 201 Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Tax Parcel 0970-00255 Residential 12 Zoning District & Commercial 1-Limited Retail Zoning District 4.3 Acres (Lot 17) Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-22-008 and conditional use application #CU-22-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC to construct a 52-space commercial parking lot on an existing 4.3 acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants on the adjoining multifamily residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 2 2 of 10 PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Commercial 1 Limited Retail (C1-LR) and Residential 12 (R12) Zoning Districts. It is also located in the Transit and Traffic Overlay Districts. The property is currently undeveloped. The most recent approval for the property was preliminary plat approval #SD-20-40, which preliminarily approved a 102.6 acre PUD consisting of 147 homes, 19 commercial development lots, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped space (O’Brien Eastview). In approval #SD-20-40, the area of the subject application was conceptually represented as containing commercial parking, though the details of that proposal were not reviewed as part of the preliminary plat since it was represented as a “commercial lot,” for which the applicant only requested review of the subdivision of land, not of the proposed uses on the lots. Therefore Staff considers this application to be the first application for commercial parking on this lot. The parking lot will be for the use of the residents on Lots 13 and 15, and as noted in concurrent final plat application #SD-22-05, is necessary to meet required parking minimums for the homes proposed on those lots. The proposed area of this parking is not within the Master Plan or Preliminary Plat for O’Brien Hillside. CONTEXT The project is subject to site plan review. Conditional use review is required because commercial parking is a conditional use in the C1-LR zoning district. Commercial parking is a prohibited use in the R12 zoning district. This application was before the Board on March 15, 2022, in conjunction with concurrent final plat application #SD-22-05. The Board did not have time to review on March 15. The Board continued the application to May 4, and the applicant provided revised documents to Staff on the basis of the March 15 staff report on April 19, 2022. The below analysis reflects the updated plans. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 2/3/2022 and 4/19/2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. Since the applicant has elected to not subdivide the lands such that the proposed parking are is included in Lot 13 (see applicant’s cover letter “The reasons that this land is not simply incorporated into Lot 13, is simply to allow for the underlying density of the land to remain available to the Eastview planned unit development.”), the only way to approve parking on a lot without a principal building is to consider it a commercial or public parking facility. Such use is prohibited in the R12 zoning district. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Commercial 1-LR12 Required Provided Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 188,312 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 30% 0% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 12.7% Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown1 #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 3 3 of 10 Min. Front Setback 30 ft. n/a Min. Side Setback 10 ft. n/a Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. n/a Building Height 4 stories n/a 1. The applicant has not provided a computation of front setback coverage, though it appears to be below the maximum of 30%. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide this information as a condition of approval. 3.03 District Boundaries C. Split Lots. Where a district boundary divides a lot which was in a single ownership at the time of passage of these regulations, the Development Review Board may permit, as a conditional use, the extension of the regulations for either portion of the lot but not to exceed fifty (50) feet beyond the district line into the remaining portion of the lot (See Article 14 for Conditional Use Review). This provision shall no apply to the boundary lines of any overlay or floating district. In the March 15 Staff report, Staff identified that the R12 zoning district extends approximately 110 ft into Lot 17, therefore the Board cannot simply apply the regulations of the C1-LR zoning district to the lands on Lot 17 that are contained within the R12 district pursuant to the split lot provisions of 3.03C. Staff recommended the applicant revise the plans to show the location of the zoning district boundary line in order to evaluate how much of the proposed commercial parking is within the R12 district, and to allow the Board to evaluate whether to extend the regulations of the C1-LR district up to 50’ into the R12 district. The applicant has done so. Based on the provided plan, a portion of 13 parking spaces are more than 50-ft into the R12 district, while 42 spaces are either within the C1-LR or within 50-ft of the boundary of the R12 district. Staff considers the applicant should be able to modify their plan so all but four (4) parking spaces are within the C1-LR or within 50-ft of the boundary of the R12 district, and recommends the Board direct them to do so. 1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the four parking spaces which are significantly more than 50-ft outside of the C1-LR. The applicant has indicated in their cover memo that every space is important to them, but Staff does not see a path forward for approval of these spaces. The applicant has suggested in their cover memo a willingness to amend their master plan and final plat to include the area of these spaces. If they wish to pursue that course of action, Staff considers that must be done outside of this site plan and conditional use application. 2. Staff recommends the Board enter into a discussion of what they will allow to be constructed in the portion of Lot 17 which is within the R12 zoning district. Staff considers the applicant has added 30 units in the buildings on Lots 13 & 15, while simultaneously reducing the area of open space on those parcels. While Staff acknowledges the need for an adequate amount of parking, there is nothing prohibiting the applicant from using more of the C1-LR for parking and retaining the R12 portion of the lot as open space. Such a modification would not affect the ability of the applicant to use the underlying density of Lot 17 to apply towards the Eastview planned unit development, and such parking beyond the required minimum for Lots 13 and 15 could be subject to a shared use agreement in the future. If left open, this area could be used to meet the 10% interior parking lot landscaping requirement. Conditional use criteria are discussed below. B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 4 4 of 10 A. 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. No structures are proposed. There are a variety of shade trees proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot. Additional comments pertaining to landscaping are included under 13.04 below. Staff considers pedestrian movement to be addressed. The proposed parking is adequate to make up the deficit in required parking spaces on the adjacent lots 13 & 15. Aside from landscaping, Staff considers this criterion met. (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. This criterion is difficult to interpret, since there is no building proposed on the lot. On other projects, the Board has used the interpretation that though the parking must be considered a commercial parking since it is not associated with a principal structure, compliance with this criterion may be evaluated based on principal structures on adjacent lots. When measured using the location of the building on Lot 13, this criterion is met. 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. No buildings are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations. These standards are contained in Article 13. C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation standards of Section 15.A.14. Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this application. The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow. 15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 5 5 of 10 Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to: (1) Provide a minimum of two (2) entrances or access points from an arterial or collector street to a subdivision with more than fifty (50) dwelling units on four (4) or more lots or within four (4) or more principal buildings, unless otherwise approved by the DRB in consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. Two entrances are proposed for the 251 dwelling units on Lots 13 & 15, though this criterion is not applicable because only two lots and two buildings are proposed. (2) Separate subdivision entrances by a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet on either side of a public street, as necessary to ensure safe access and traffic movement into and out of the subdivision. Subdivision entrances on opposite sides of a public street may be allowed by the DRB if substantially aligned with each other. This criterion is met. (3) – (5) Pertain to street (as distinct from driveway) design and are not applicable. (6) Design intersections and other access points to City specifications to include curb radii necessary to accommodate anticipated vehicle types and speeds while also minimizing pedestrian crossing distances. (7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-accident locations. Staff considers criterion (6) and (7) to be met. (8) Align access points with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible. Curb cuts are not aligned but Staff considers they are substantially separated to circumvent safety concerns. Curb cuts are consolidated. (9) Minimize vehicular access points (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along pedestrian-oriented street frontage; and provide, where physically feasible, shared vehicular access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes, shared driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels. 3. Staff considers the design addresses this criterion well. In acknowledgement that the development program for Lot 17 has not yet been presented, Staff recommends the Board include a condition that there shall not be an additional curb cut on Lot 17 on O’Brien Farm Road or on Old Farm Road within 200-ft of the proposed curb cut as measured along the edge of the right of way. #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 6 6 of 10 F. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. See 13.02F below for discussion of access. G. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met. Staff considers this criterion met. C) CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.10E. General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. The parking is proposed to serve multifamily residential units for which a determination on the capacity of community facilities has already been made. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The impacts of the proposed parking on the character of the area is discussed under site plan review criteria 14.06A and B above. #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 7 7 of 10 (a) A multiunit dwelling project consisting of four or fewer units located in a district allowing multiunit dwellings may not be denied solely due to an undue adverse effect on the character of the area affected. N/A (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The parking is proposed to serve multifamily residential units for which a determination on traffic has already been made. Staff considers this criterion met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. This document provides an evaluation of compliance with bylaws and ordinances. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met. D) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. The applicant is proposing a single curb cut on Lot 17 to serve Lots 13 and 15 and to serve future development on Lot 17 from O’Brien Farm Road. Staff acknowledges that an additional curb cut(s) on Old Farm Road or Kennedy Drive may later be warranted and will be evaluated at that time. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to have met this criterion for the current proposal. G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping (1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-2 and Figure 13-1, Section 13.04, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. Dimensional requirements are met. Landscaping, screening and lighting are discussed below. (2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and existing traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. With the proposed development program, Staff considers this criterion met. Staff does note that approval of this configuration may impact the applicant’s ability to comply with this criterion for the future development of Lot 17. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. The fire chief reviewed the preliminary plat plans, which included the proposed parking and #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 8 8 of 10 driveway on Lot 17. Staff considers modifications to the plans do not significantly alter what the Fire Chief would have reviewed. If changes are needed based on more detailed building inspector review, the zoning administrative officer will determine whether it is a field change or requires an amendment. Staff considers this criterion met. (4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths. Staff considers this criterion met. (5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.03 (6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. Stormwater management is discussed under 13.05 below. 13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties. (1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. Staff considers the proposed grading and shrub buffer to meet this criterion. (2) In all 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. As noted in the staff report for concurrent final plat application SD-22-05 on Lots 13 and 15, the applicant has provided an exhibit in which they aggregate all the parking on Lots 13, 15 and 17 for the purpose of meeting this requirement. 4. Given that the parking on Lot 17 is not part of this master plan that includes Lots 13 and 15, and is subject to separate site plan and conditional use review, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow the calculation as proposed, or whether the Board will require this criterion to be met for the parking on Lot 17 alone. If the Board does not allow #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 9 9 of 10 aggregation of interior parking lot landscaping between all three Lots, the Board should require the applicant to provide a revised calculation demonstrating whether this criterion is met. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.04(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. 5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise interior parking lot landscaping to meet this criterion or to exclude parking lot islands not meeting this minimum dimension from contributing to the required 10% interior parking lot landscaping. (4) Landscaping Requirements (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. This criterion is met. (c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball. This criterion is met. (d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking lot and the site. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (7) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. Staff considers this criterion met. C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a public street. Staff considers additional screening beyond that required in 13.04B(1) to be unnecessary. Staff considers this criterion met. D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and multi- family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration #SP-22-008 & #CU-22-01 10 10 of 10 are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of sections 13.04(F) and (G). Staff considers this criterion met. 13.05 Stormwater Management Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is proposed to exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. The stormwater management system for the impervious surfaces proposed on this property was reviewed in conjunction with concurrent final plat application #SD-22-05 for Lots 13 and 15. Staff considers this criterion met. 13.07 Exterior Lighting Lighting requirements are summarized as follows. (1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded (2) Illumination must be evenly distributed (3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance (4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish (5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft (6) Poles must be located in safe locations Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited to 3 foot-candles average at ground level. Maximum illumination levels on Lot 17 are 3.1 foot-candles and below. Though the applicant has not provided specific information about pole heights for this application, Staff has assumed the applicant’s statement that parking lot light heights are 12-ft for Lots 13 & 15 also applies to this lot. Staff considers this criterion met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner