HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-05 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (56)1 of 21
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-22-05_255 Kennedy Dr Lots 13 and 15_SC_2022-03-16
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 25, 2022
Plans received: February 3, 2022
255 Kennedy Drive
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-22-05
Meeting date: March 15, 2022
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, R1 PRD, Transit Overlay District
Location Map
2 of 21
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD-22-05 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved
master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non residential space as allowable in the zoning district.
The phase consists of two (2) five story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total
of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 sf of commercial space, and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy
Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received master plan approval in 2016 (#MP-16-03), later amended by #MP-20-01 to add 0.6
acres to the master plan area. The multi-family/mixed use portion of the project received preliminary
plat approval #SD-20-16 which included 392 units in six buildings, of which 49 units +/-5% were required
to be inclusionary, and 3,500 sf of commercial space. The Board later approved preliminary plat #SD-21-
13 to allow the final plat submission for the project approved in #SD-20-16 to be submitted in phases.
The first phase of #SD-20-16 has been approved by the Board as application #SD-21-25. #SD-21-25
contains conditions modifying the inclusionary housing framework approved in #SD-20-16.
CONTEXT
#SD-20-16 preliminarily approved the following buildings.
Lot # # of Units Commercial SF Max Height (# of
habitable stories)
10 44 0 55’ (4)
11 44 0 56’ (4)
12 48 (inclusionary) 0 62’ (4)
13 118 3,500 58’ (4)
14 33 0 52’ (3)
15 103 0 57’ (4)
This application includes 251 homes in a mix of studio, one, and two bedroom units. This represents an
increase of 30 homes over what was preliminarily approved in #SD-20-16. For comparison, 166 homes
have been constructed to date on Market and Garden Streets, and 321 units are approved in all of South
Village. Staff considers it appropriate for the Board and Staff to provide the same level of detailed review
for these homes as they would provide for 251 homes in any other configuration.
The project is located in the Residential 12 and Commercial 1-LR Zoning Districts. The project also lies in
Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 3 as well as the Transit Overlay District.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on February 3, 2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered
comments for the Boards attention are in red.
3 of 21
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
3
A) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
Several findings of the preliminary plat approval #SD-20-16 relied on a final plat that is consistent with the
project as represented at preliminary plat. These finds are more difficult to implement given the Board’s
subsequent approval of a phased final plat. The Board determined in their review of final plat application
#SD-21-35 that they are entitled to rely on the applicant’s representations of the proposed buildings from
the preliminary plat.
Preliminary plat approval included several conditions that were required to be incorporated into the final
plat application. The applicant has failed to address the following relevant conditions of preliminary plat
#SD-20-16
1. Remove two parking spaces to the front of the building on Two Brothers Drive on Lot 15
2. On photometric plan, omit areas outside of the lots and the stormwater areas within the lots
3. Provide a detailed landscaping/hardscape plan demonstrating that parking garages are screened
where adjacent to community spaces
a. A sidewalk is proposed immediately adjacent to the parking garage on Lot 15, precluding
landscape screening
Staff further considers the following condition of preliminary plat #SD-20-16 to not be met
1. Demonstration that the design of the building and landscaping on Lot 15 provides an
attractive street presence and that garage lighting is shielded from being a nuisance on
Kennedy Drive.
a. The building may provide an attractive street presence but Staff considers it to not
be demonstrated
1. Some of these conditions are discussed in more detail herein, while others are self-explanatory. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to fully address the conditions of the preliminary plat
approval before closing the hearing.
B) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
R12 District Required Proposed, Lot 13 Proposed Lot 15
√ Min. Lot Size, Multifamily,
R12
6,000 sf/unit N/A, overall density approved in master plan
√ Max. Building Coverage1 35% Unknown Unknown
√ Max. Overall Coverage1 50% Unknown Unknown
C1-LR District
√ Min. Lot Size, Multifamily 3,500 sf/unit N/A, overall density approved in master plan
√ Max. Building Coverage1 40% 0% Unknown
Max. Overall Coverage1 70% Unknown Unknown
Both R12 & C1-LR
Min. Front Setback2 6 ft 5.6 ft 66 ft
Min. Side Setback3 10 ft 16 ft 6.5 ft
√ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft N/A N/A
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
4 of 21
Height (flat roof)4 35 ft. 58.3 ft 57.1 ft
√ Standard met
1. Building and overall coverage are reviewed on a PUD-wide basis as approved in master plan.
However, lot coverage must be met on a zoning district by zoning district basis, pursuant to
15.02B. See additional notes below under “Lot Coverage.”
2. The Board approved waiver of the front setback from 20-ft to 6-ft as part of #MP-16-03. No
comment is made in #MP-16-03 as to what the expectation was for granting this waiver,
though Staff infers that it was granted due to the dense neighborhood design represented by
the applicant at that master plan level of review. The applicant is requesting further
reduction of the front setback to 5.6 ft. Generally, Staff considers the further reduction in
front setback for Lot 13 to be supportive of the intended dense neighborhood feel,
particularly given the board’s approval of a 60-ft ROW with an 8 – 10 ft sidewalk and rec path
in this area.
3. The applicant is proposing to locate the building on Lot 15 less than 10-ft from the side
property line. The applicant is also proposing a sidewalk on the far side of the property line in
this area (addressed in concurrent site plan and conditional use application #SD-22-008 and
#CU-22-01). Lot 17 is predominantly within the C1-R12 zoning district, which allows building
heights up to five stories.
2. Without a development proposal for Lot 17, Staff considers it not possible to assess
whether the reduced side setback would result in the building on Lot 15 creating an
undue visual or physical impact on Lot 17. The Board is unable to impose conditions
on Lot 17 as part of this approval. Because it would be difficult for the applicant to
demonstrate that the reduced setback waiver would not have an undue impact at this
time, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to increase the side setback to
10-ft.
4. The Board preliminarily approved a waiver to allow a height of 58 ft on Lot 13 and a height of
57 ft on Lot 15 in #SD-20-16, based on the provision of high quality, varied and
complimentary architecture for all buildings and landscaping. As more phases are approved,
the definition of “varied and complementary” will necessarily narrow. The applicant has
indicated their current application is “consistent” with the heights allowed by the Board at
preliminary plat. However, the applicant is proposing to exceed the heights preliminarily
approved by the Board. While the Board may approve additional height waivers, Staff
considers this a new waiver request requiring affirmative findings. Staff considers this waiver
request will be acceptable when other comments related to the buildings’ architecture are
addressed.
Lot Coverage
The master plan approved maximum overall coverage of 50%, and a maximum building coverage of 35%.
15.02A(4)(b) prohibits the site coverage in each zoning district from exceeding the maximum allowable in
that zoning district. The applicant has provided the following table of coverages which includes the portions
of preliminary plat #SD-20-16 approved in #SD-21-25 and proposed in this application.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
5 of 21
District Max Lot Coverage Provided Lot
Coverage
Max Building
Coverage
Provided Building
Coverage
R12 60% 36.6% 40% 12.5%
C1-LR 70% 66.1% 40% 28.4%
R1-PRD 25% 13.9% 15% 13.9%
Staff considers this criterion met.
Phasing
Preliminary plat amendment #SD-21-13 found that the applicant could construct each lot as a separate
phase, though the first final plat application (#SD-21-25) was required to include the final design of both
roadways. Further, the Board reserved the right to permit the applicant to construct the roadways
concurrently with the first lot developed on each. Since neither #SD-21-25 nor the associated zoning
permits have yet been issued, no zoning permit has been issued for the roadways required to access lots 13
and 15. Staff recommends the Board require the roadways proposed in #SD-21-25 be issued a zoning
permit no later than concurrently with the first of the zoning permits for Lots 13 and 15.
Staff notes the applicant makes no proposal for phasing of the development proposed in this
application.
C) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Preliminary plat decision #SD-20-16 included the following condition pertaining to phasing:
The applicant must obtain a zoning permit for the building containing the inclusionary units no later
than the fourth building, but may obtain a zoning permit for the fifth building while the inclusionary
building is under construction. The applicant must receive a certificate of occupancy for the building
containing the inclusionary units prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the sixth and final building.
Under 18.01, 15% of approved rental dwelling units subject to this application must be inclusionary.
This is calculated across the area of SD-20-16. This application proposes 124 units on Lot 13 and 127
units on Lot 15, requiring 38 inclusionary units.
Final plat approval #SD-21-25 approves up to 84 units of inclusionary housing in the buildings on Lots 10
and 11. It requires the applicant to designate from the affordable units on Lots 10 and 11 which units
will meet the inclusionary requirements for the other lots (here, Lots 13 and 15) prior to issuance of a
zoning permit for the fourth building among the six from SD-20-16. If the buildings on Lots 10 and 11
are constructed prior to the buildings in this application, the applicant will be required to designate the
inclusionary units on Lots 10 and 11 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for these buildings. Though the
applicant is required to comply regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the decision on this
application, Staff recommends the Board include such a condition anyway.
At the preliminary plat level, the Board prepared findings on the characteristics of the proposed
inclusionary housing, but deferred findings on how the required percentages are attained to final plat.
This is because the applicant indicated that they were uncertain about the total proposed number of
units.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
6 of 21
D) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has received preliminary water allocation for all six (6) phase 2 buildings, and has
received preliminary wastewater allocation for the buildings on Lots 10 and 11.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on March 2, 2022 and
offers the following comments.
1. The current site plans for these two buildings meet with the SBWD’s satisfaction.
2. Water line installation shall be in compliance with the CWD Specifications.
3. A Final Application for Water Allocation for each building must be provided to the
Department to be approved. During this process the water connection fee, water allocation
fee, and large meter fee for each building will be determined, that must be paid prior to the
SBWD providing a meter.
4. The SBWD shall be notified no less than 7 days in advance of water line or appurtenance
work.
Staff recommends the Board incorporate the comments of the South Burlington Water
Department as a condition of approval.
(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.
The applicant provided erosion and sediment control plans. The project will be subject to a state
construction permit. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans dated December 1, 2021
on March 4, 2022, including the erosion and sediment control plan and offered the following
comments.
1. The applicant may want to consider revising the landscaping plan to allow better access to
the forebay, including greater spacing between the adjacent street trees and fewer plantings
on the slope of the forebay nearest to the road.
2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Staff recommends the applicant take the first comment under advisement, and that the Board
incorporate the second comment as a condition of approval.
(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.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
7 of 21
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 August
30, 2021. It does not take into consideration the Boards findings on #SD-21-25 related to this
criterion, specifically pertaining to the crosswalk at the Lot 13/15 driveway.
The traffic study concludes that the traffic signal at Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive is not
yet warranted, and recommends a RRFB be installed on Kennedy Drive until such time as the
traffic signal is warranted. Staff strongly disagrees with this recommendation. Kennedy Drive is
not an appropriate roadway for a RRFB. The Board provided findings pertaining to the Kennedy
Drive crosswalk in #SD-21-25.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the remaining aspects of the plans pertaining to this and
PUD criterion 8 and 9 on March 4, 2022 and offers the following comments.
• I recommend that the DRB invoke a technical review of the traffic impacts, proposed
driveway locations, and proposed pedestrian crossings. The technical reviewer should
look at all aspects related to intersection design and safety, but specifically:
o Review the location of the proposed driveway access on O’brien Farm Road.
Ensure that it will have required sight distances considering the future
intersection. Also confirm that it will be placed an appropriate distance away
from any future intersection with Old Farm Road.
o Review the layout of the two proposed driveway accesses on Two Brothers Drive.
Confirm that they have required site distance and are located an appropriate
distance from intersections.
o It was my understanding that a pedestrian crossing would be provided on Two
Brother Drive. Provide review of the location selected by the applicant once
provided.
o Determine the need for a signalized intersection at Two Brothers Drive and
Kennedy Drive. It was my understanding that a new signal would be installed at
this location.
• If the project hasn’t already obtained a wastewater allocation from the City it will need
to do so.
• Revise the typical catch basin / storm manhole / sanitary manhole details as follows: At
the frame installation on the top of the structure we do not want asphalt on top of
concrete. This thin layer of asphalt would break away and can’t be maintained in place.
The frame should be mortared or secured in place with mastic to the top of the structure.
Compacted plant mix should be placed above that, with 5 inches of pavement (base and
top course) on top of that.
During this time where the City does not have an in-house traffic expert, Staff requested BFJ
Planning provide a high level review the provided traffic study. BFJ concurred that a full third-
party technical review would be beneficial, as it would give them the opportunity to look into a
full range of details, including the driveway geometry for Lot 15 and trip generation. Their initial
review on March 4, 2022 identified discrepancies between the applicant’s trip generation
calculation and what is calculated by ITE.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the Director of
Public Works before closing the hearing, the Board authorize third-party technical review of the
applicant’s traffic study for Lots 13 and 15, and the Board continue the application until the
technical review is complete.
8 of 21
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
(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.
(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 is further discussed in conjunction with Site
Plan Review Standards 14.06B and 14.06C. The Board preliminarily found the project consistent
with the planned development patterns specified in the Comprehensive Plan and in the purpose
of the R-12 zoning district. Staff considers this preliminary finding applies to the overall layout
and scale of development; building and site appearance is discussed in detail elsewhere in these
comments.
(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 location and area of permanent open spaces was approved at the master plan level but the
design of open space was not. At the sketch plan meeting on this phase, the Board had a robust
discussion of the programming of on-site open spaces to be included in this area, asking that the
applicant provide small useable open spaces for each building. The applicant at preliminary plat
provided landscaping sketches showing a proposed open space for each lot consisting of a paved
patio area with seating, gas grill and fire pit, which the Board relied upon in approving the
preliminary plat. Other non-participatory open spaces in the project area include two stormwater
management features near Kennedy Drive.
Lot 13: The applicant has proposed a roof deck largely similar to that which was proposed at
preliminary plat. The area previously shown to be a pool has been replaced with an elevated
height ceiling for the gym on the level below. While that presents an attractive gym space, it
reduces the size and feel of the roof deck and provides blank walls in the interior of the roof deck..
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss the functionality of this roof space, especially given that
portions adjacent to individual dwelling units will be private and separate, and determine
whether the space dedicated to the elevated ceiling for the space below would be better served
as additional useable roof space.
Lot 15: The preliminarily approved concepts and the current proposals are shown side by side
below, with the current concept on the right. Scale and viewport are the same.
9 of 21
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
In both of the Lot 15 open spaces, the provided area is appreciably smaller than was preliminarily
approved at preliminary plat. In the street front open space (the bottom pair of images), interior
landscaping and perimeter screening is removed. This street front area was represented at
preliminary plat by the applicant to serve as a central gathering place for multiple lots.
5. While Staff considers it would be acceptable to modify the configuration of the conceptual open
spaces, Staff is concerned about the reduction in the size and amenities of open spaces adjacent
to a 127 unit building. There are now two distinct areas instead of three, and the
aforementioned gas grills are not provided. While this sort of change may be considered minor,
the Board will note Staff identifies several similar erosion of previously-established expectations
throughout this document, and encourages the Board to consider them individually as well as
cumulatively. Staff also notes that the applicant is proposing 30 additional households occupy
these buildings than previously conceived, indicating potentially greater demand for these same
amenities. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether open spaces are consistent with the
preliminary plat findings, and whether they are sufficient for the proposed buildings.
(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,
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
10 of 21
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 had an opportunity to review the plans. The Fire Chief provided
comments at preliminary plat, and 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.
(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.
(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.
15.12 pertains to roadway geometry, cross section, and sidewalks. Roadways were evaluated as
part of #SD-21-25. See criterion 11 below for comments related to stormwater. The Board
deferred findings on lighting and utility lines to final plat.
LDR A.9 requires that the maximum illumination at ground level not be in excess of an average
of three (3) foot-candles. The preliminary plat finding requiring the applicant to update the
photometric plans to omit areas outside of the lots and the stormwater areas within the lots has
not been addressed.
6. The proposed lighting plan omits sufficient information to determine if the proposed building
mounted fixtures meet height limitations of 30-ft. One of the proposed building mounted
fixtures has upward facing lighting, which is prohibited. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to address the deficiencies in the lighting plan prior to closing the hearing.
Utility lines are proposed to be underground. Utility cabinets are located within the development
lots (as opposed to within the ROW). Screening of utility cabinets is considered under site plan
review standards pertaining to landscaping.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
(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.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
11 of 21
The Project triggers the Stormwater Management Standards of Section 12.03. Comments of the
City Stormwater Section are provided above. Staff considers this criterion met.
E) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 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.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
See discussion under 14.06C(1) and (2) below.
(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.
(b) – (c) Not applicable
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of
the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic.
The applicant is proposing 98 spaces beneath the building on Lot 13, 71 spaces beneath the
building on Lot 15, and 95 surface parking spaces. Off-site spaces are not addressed in this
application, of which there are 51. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant
must meet minimum parking requirements as each building is proposed.
Two of the proposed parking spaces on Lot 15 are to the front of the building on that lot.
The Board included as a condition of preliminary plat that these spaces be removed. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to remove these two parking spaces.
Parking minimum are addressed in 13.01. 0.75 spaces are required per dwelling unit for
studio and one-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for units with two
bedrooms and above. In addition, 0.75 spaces are required for every 4 units, as long as no
more than one parking spaces is reserved per dwelling unit. The purpose of the additional
0.75 spaces is to accommodate guest parking. Based on a provided table of dwelling units,
the applicant is proposing
198 studio and one bedroom units
53 two bedroom units
Guest parking for 251 units
275 Total required spaces
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
12 of 21
The applicant has provided 264 on-site parking spaces (262 on-site spaces once the non
complying spaces are removed), which is less than the required minimum. For reference,
the applicant proposed only 221 units at preliminary plat, which, depending on the bedroom
count, could have required fewer parking spaces. Staff considers this application to be
contingent on the concurrent site plan and conditional use application for parking on Lot 17.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
Requested height waivers are addressed under dimensional standards above. See discussion of
compatibility under 14.06C(1) and (2) below.
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.
Given the reduced setbacks and the strong street presence of all buildings in this phase of the
master plan, a configuration supported by the Board and by Staff, Staff considers buffering and
screening to not be available to create transitions between buildings. Though generally it is
possible to create attractive transitions using adjoining buildings of different styles, to date the
applicant has placed a strong emphasis on consistency between buildings to create a strong
neighborhood feel.
At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion met because all buildings were proposed to
be of the same architectural style. The buildings proposed for Lots 13 and 15 differ both from
the preliminary plat proposal and the buildings approved on Lots 10 and 11.
In performing a comparison between the currently proposed structure on Lots 13 and 15 and
the structures proposed at preliminary plat, Staff notes the following changes
1. Increased number of units and reduction of interior common spaces. The preliminary
plat placed particular emphasis on interior common spaces for Lot 13, though interior
common space on Lot 15 was also considered a requirement.
2. Changes in glazing
a. Reduction in glazing
b. Removal of vertical breaks created by providing sliding doors.
c. Removal of window headers and sills as a textural element of the buildings
d. Reduction in window variability
e. Removal of balconies. It appears there are some sort of grates over the lower
half of some windows, but they do not appear to be balconies as envisioned at
preliminary plat
3. Reduction in the complexity and texture of cornices at the roof line
4. Changes in garage openings
a. Significant reduction in the number of openings on the exposed side of the
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
13 of 21
garage
b. Replacement of decorative slatted openings with building mounted frames with
solid walls behind them
Specifically on Lot 13, the applicant has made the following changes
1. Removal of three large groupings of storefront glazing with suspended awnings on the
north facing façade
2. Inclusion of a large blank area at the northern terminus of the building. This area may
be intended for some sort of decorative treatment, though it is not indicated on the
plans. Staff notes the interior layout of the units, including the provision of a
mechanical room on the outer wall of the building, is driving this design.
3. Reduction in texture and interest in the center tower
a. Replacement of entry feature with a single solid door
On Lot 13, the applicant has made the following changes
1. Removal of decorative railings on the roof deck
2. As noted above, inclusion of a clerestory box where the pool was previously proposed
Comparing the currently proposed structures on Lot 13 and 15 to the recently approved
structures on Lots 10 and 11, Staff notes the following.
1. The buildings on Lot 13 and 15 have less variation in window type than the buildings on
Lots 10 & 11
2. The buildings on Lot 13 and 15 have less detail at the roof line
3. The buildings on Lot 13 and 15 have fewer garage openings
As noted above, Staff considers for this phased project, the Board has the right to rely on
consistency with preliminary plat for affirmative findings on these criteria. In addition, with the
recent approval of the buildings on lots 10 & 11, which are proposed to contain many or all of
the inclusionary units in this area, designs complimentary to the approved plan for those lots is a
requirement of inclusionary zoning.
As a refresher, preliminary findings pertaining to the compliance of each lot with this criterion
and the criteria of 14.06A and 14.06B follows.
All Lots
The applicant’s initial submission represented buildings with the same architecture as one
another, entry towers at all six buildings, and parking garages along at least one street facing
façade for each building. During the preliminary plat hearings, the applicant provided
supplemental testimony and exhibits to respond to Board feedback on this and the criteria of
14.06A and 14.06B. This testimony indicated the applicant’s approach to creating an attractive
and activated street presence for each building by creating an engaging street presence. This
was proposed to be done through modifications to the buildings and surrounding streetscape,
to include the following.
• a “theme and variation” approach to the entry towers, with similar exterior architecture
but differing interior treatments visible through the tower windows.
• slatted ventilation and decorative inserts to screen street-level garage openings
• an entrance into street level common space near the center of the garage where it faces
on a street
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
14 of 21
• landscape architectural elements including seating, information kiosks
• vegetation to include trees, grasses and planters
• complimentary entrances at the main four-way intersection to include short term
bicycle parking, flush granite curbing, seat walls, raised planting beds, bench seating,
and landscaping
• interior common spaces
• walkways, including suspended decks and boardwalks along Kennedy Drive
• Where parking garages make up the street-level façade, the applicant has proposed a
small common room, approximately the size of 1.5 parking spaces, with street-level
entry, on each façade.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide the features
specifically called out at preliminary plat above as well as to modify the buildings to be
consistent with those represented at preliminary plat in order to demonstrate compliance with
these criteria.
Lot 13
In addition to the above-mentioned findings on these criteria applicable to all lots, at
preliminary plat the Board placed special emphasis on providing a visual or functional transition
along the façade of the building facing Two Brothers Drive where the grade drops away from the
entry tower to the leasing office in the opposite corner. In this final plat application, there is no
apparent change in the building architecture in this area. In terms of site plan, the applicant has
provided a sidewalk in this area leading to what is potentially a patio, though no label is
provided. The landscaping plan in fact omits this area altogether, though based on the
landscaping provided at the edges of available plans, Staff believes it possible that this area is
lawn.
8. Staff therefore considers that the has not provided a special treatment in this area, either via site
layout, architecture, or landscaping, and the objective of the Board’s preliminary plat finding has
not been addressed.
Lot 15
The Boards preliminary findings on Lot 15 emphasized that this building is a gateway. At
preliminary plat, the Board gave careful consideration to the layout of the driveway and the
parking garage entrance, and approved a large hardscape plaza along Two Brothers Drive. Staff
analysis of this hardscape plaza’s consistency with the preliminary plat presentation is above.
14.7 Specific Review Standards
9. The applicant has provided only one civil engineering drawing sheet for each of the involved lots.
Consequently, Staff has been unable to locate some necessary information, and considers it not
possible to adequately review other elements due to the consolidated plans. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to provide separate layout and material, grading and drainage, and
utility drawings in order to facilitate a comprehensive review of the proposed 251 units of housing. A
more detailed review of specific site plan review standards will be performed when individual sheets
are provided.
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
15 of 21
apply:
A. 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.
The Board found at preliminary plat that no additional land was required for provision of access to
abutting properties on Lots 13 and 15. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. 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 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Utility connections are proposed to be underground.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
At preliminary plat, for Lots 13 and 15, solid waste disposal was proposed to be in an accessory structure
shared with an as-yet undetermined use, potentially to include mail or bicycle storage. The Board found
the applicant must improve pedestrian access to the accessory structure.
The applicant has modified the proposal to provide for only solid waste disposal in this location. The
solid waste disposal is no longer proposed to be a structure but is proposed to be a screened enclosure.
Pedestrian access is provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
At preliminary plat, the Board identified the following objectives of the landscaping plan
• Landscaping within the developed areas should celebrate the urban environment rather than
attempt to screen it. Spaces should be designed to be useable rather than decorative. Staff
considers this has been addressed by providing a mix of grass and planted areas.
• A densely planted buffer between the street and the buildings would detract from a
neighborhood feel and the Board finds the applicant must use landscaping to complement and
enhance architecture and layout, rather than to screen or hide. Where units are adjacent to
the street, a densely planted buffer is proposed. As noted above, there is a gap in the
landscaping plans along Two Brothers Drive.
10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide revised landscaping plans that
show the entire project area, allowing the overall effect of the landscaping to be evaluated.
• There should be a balance between landscaped areas and shaded open areas to allow for
small opportunities for outdoor enjoyment. Where not otherwise necessary, the Board finds
the applicant should expand useable open space by providing strategically placed shade trees
in lieu of dense hedges. Necessity may occur in the case of specific regulatory requirements or
restricted access areas like transformers or vaults, or to create a small buffer between open
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
16 of 21
spaces and private residences. Review of specifically required landscaping is provided below.
Staff considers this to have been addressed.
The applicant estimates building cost to be approximately $47,825,950, resulting in a required minimum
landscaping value of $485,759.50. The applicant has proposed the following elements that they wish to
use as credit towards the required minimum budget.
Item Cost Staff Recommendation
Concrete pavers at terraces, $72,610.90 Include only the cost beyond
the cost of standard poured
concrete
Concrete pavers at drive
between buildings
$31,850.00 Include only the cost beyond
the cost of standard poured
concrete
Stonedust sitting area $2,884 Exclude.
Site furnishings $39,544 Exclude. With the exception of
bollards and bike racks, which
are non-decorative standard
elements, these items are non-
permanent
Trees $134,635 Include
Shrubs $87,315 Include
Perennials and Grasses $29,640 At the Board’s discretion if
other elements of landscaping
plan are met and site is well
landscaped. Staff is developing
a standardized perennial area
value.
Amenity Deck Shrubs,
Perennials and Grasses
$26,165 Include, though Staff is
developing a standardized
perennial area value.
Total $382,215.90 or less provided
($485,759.50 required)
Total includes only
recommended elements and
includes full reported value of
concrete pavers and perennials
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to substantiate the proposed concrete paver cost
and increase their provided landscaping to meet the required minimum landscaping budget. Staff
considers hardscape elements may be included but they should meet the requirements of the
landscaping standards to be maintained in perpetuity (and not include moveable site furnishings).
Specific comments on parking lot landscaping and screening requirements are discussed immediately
below.
Section 13.06B of the Land Development Regulations addresses landscaping of parking areas as follows.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
17 of 21
(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.
The Board found at preliminary plat that compliance with this criterion would be evaluated at
final plat for Lots 13 & 15.
Taking into consideration only the portions of the parking lots which are not screened from the
public way and adjacent properties by buildings, Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) 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.
The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must to meet this criterion for each parking
lot rather than overall. 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. Staff’s inclination is to
aggregate the parking on Lots 13 and 15 but not the parking on Lot 17.
12. Given that the parking on Lot 17 is not part of this master plan and is subject to separate site
plan and conditional use review, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow the
calculation as proposed. If the Board does not allow this calculation method, this criterion is not
met.
(1) 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 13.06(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.
13. There is inconsistency between the civil drawings and the landscaping drawings pertaining to
curbing. Staff considers compliance with this criterion needs more detailed review when
separate plan sheets are provided.
14. Some interior planted islands are only 4-ft in width. Staff considers these islands need to be
made wider in order to count towards (2) above and to support tree health.
(2) 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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
18 of 21
The lot between buildings 13 and 15 contains 51 spaces. The lot north of building 13 contains 73
spaces, of which approximately 31 are on Lot 17. Though the landscaping plans make it difficult
to count trees, it appears 24 shade trees are provided. 25 are required. As noted above, some of
the planting islands are less than 6-ft wide. Staff considers the trees in those planting islands have
a low chance of survival. Staff considers additional review of this criterion is required once
planting islands meet minimum dimensions.
(b) 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 has been 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.
A mix of species is proposed and species are grouped. Staff considers this criterion met.
(e) N/A
The City Arborist provided the following additional comments on the landscaping plan on
3/1/2022.
• Recommend against planting shrubs in city ROW (particularly Rugosa Rose which
becomes a litter catcher). City doesn’t have staffing to maintain shrub beds
• Need to specify adequate, uncompacted soils support root development of Honeylocust
planted in patio (structural soils or soil cells)
• Specify parking lot bump outs be filled with planting soil to depth of at least 2 ft. to
provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth
15. The Board in its final plat findings for SD-21-25 allowed perennial plantings in the city ROW.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist
as conditions of approval.
(3) Planting Islands
(a) Curbed planting islands shall be designed and arranged to define major circulation
aisles, entrances and exits, provide vegetative focal points, provide shade and canopy, and
break up large expanses of asphalt pavement. All islands shall be planted with trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Plant materials judged to be inappropriate by the Development
Review Board will not be approved.
(b) Curbs of such islands shall be constructed of concrete or stone and shall be designed to
facilitate surface drainage and prevent vehicles from overlapping sidewalks and damaging the
plants. Sections of drop curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from
the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection and management infrastructure.
(c) Islands are strongly encouraged to be graded and planted to serve as collection and
treatment areas for stormwater management. It is recommended that sections of drop curb
no greater than five feet in length be installed to allow stormwater to flow off the paved
parking lot and onto the island for treatment. At the DRB’s discretion, curbless parking areas
and planting islands may be allowed where these are specifically designed for stormwater
management. However, ends and corners of such areas must be protected with curbing to
19 of 21
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
prevent cars from driving over or parking on planted areas.
Stormwater treatment in planting islands is not provided. Planting is provided.
(4) 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.
Snow storage is provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
13.6 Screening or Buffering
(1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas, and utility
improvements such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be
effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to
protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the
site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the
Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of
persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall
be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review
Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development
Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively,
decreasing or increasing the requirements.
16. The proposed utility cabinet on Lot 13 is screened on three sides by grasses. Since the applicant is
proposing grasses, which are easily cut without destroying the plant, Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to screen the utility cabinet on all four sides.
The parking areas which are not screened by buildings are not effectively screened by landscaping.
However, as noted in concurrent site plan and conditional use application #SP-22-008 and #CU-22-
01, Staff considers significant modifications to the unscreened portion of the parking will be
required. Compliance with required parking lot screening will be addressed at that time.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review
Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure
less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing
condition exceeds the applicable limit.
The applicant’s requested waivers, beyond those which were issued at the master plan level, are
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
20 of 21
discussed elsewhere in this document.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is
required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
Stormwater management is addressed above under PUD standard 11.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See discussion under PUD criterion 9 above.
F) OTHER
Bicycle Parking
At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion should be evaluated on a lot by lot basis.
Minimum required bicycle spaces are as follows.
Lot # of
Units
SF Commercial
Required
short
term
spaces
Required
Long
Term
Spaces
Required
Clothes
Lockers
13 124 1,219 14 126 1
15 127 0 13 127 0
Short Term Bicycle Parking
The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must demonstrate that the racks support two
bicycles each in accordance with the standards of 13.14B(2), and meet the minimum spacing and
location requirements of 13.14B(2) and Appendix G, including distribution around principal
entrances, at final plat.
The applicant has proposed a group of five bicycle racks near the corner of Two Brothers Drive and
O’Brien Farm Road, providing parking for ten bicycles on Lot 13. The applicant has provided three
bicycle racks near Two Brothers Drive, providing parking for six bicycles on Lot 15.
17. Bike parking minimums are not met. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address
this deficiency before closing the hearing.
Long Term Bike Storage
The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages, but it is not clear
whether these storage areas will meet the minimum required number of spaces. The Board found
at preliminary plat that the applicant must provide details on these storage areas as part of the Final
Plat, including demonstration of how the required minimum numbers will be provided.
18. This requirement has not been addressed. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
address this deficiency before closing the hearing.
#SD-22-05 Staff Comments
21 of 21
Traffic Overlay District
The project is located with the traffic overlay district Zone 3. The master plan has a total area of 39.76
acres and therefore has a traffic budget of 1789 vehicle trips per PM peak hour. The project’s TIS
estimates full build of the project will generate 280 trips. Staff considers this criterion met.
Energy Standards
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner