HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-05 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (57)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-05 255 Kennedy Drive Lots 13 & 15 Final Plat Application
DATE: May 4, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
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.
CONTEXT
The Board held a hearing on this application on March 15, 2022. The Board provided feedback to the
applicant on staff comments 1 – 8, and continued the hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant
to provide updates regarding comments 1 – 8 and to provide feedback on comments 9 – 18.
The applicant provided a limited set of revised materials on April 19. Review of these revised materials
is incorporated herein; criterion which Staff considers to have been addressed have been removed from
this report. The Board and applicant are encouraged to review the March 15 Staff report and ask
questions about any of the items excluded from the below on which they would like additional
clarification.
COMMENTS
On March 15, Staff requested distinct layout, grading and utilities drawings to facilitate detailed review
of those elements. When all elements were included on a single sheet, it was difficult to read the plans.
Additional comments based on review of the updated plans are integrated into the below.
A) 15.18 PUD STANDARDS
(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.
On March 15, the Board invoked third party technical review of the traffic analysis and turn lane
configuration. BFJ Planning performed this review. Their comments are included in the packet for the
Board and summarized as follows.
• Trip Generation: BFJ agrees with the applicant’s calculation of trip generation, and highlights that
AM peak hour trips for all of Hillside increase by 34 VTE/hour (14.5% increase) based on the
applicants November 2021 trip generation memo. The TIS was originally prepared in August 2021
and was not updated to reflect the November trip generation adjustment.
• Signal Warrant Analysis: The signal is warranted when the trips on Two Brothers Drive exceeds
100 vph. The projected AM peak traffic volume in the August 2021 TIS is 115 vph, which would
be increased by incorporating the trip generation from the November 2021 memo. BFJ
recommends monitoring the intersection. Staff notes that since the TIA only considers trips
generated by Lots 10 – 15 as a whole, and Lots 12 & 14 are not yet proposed for development, it
is unknown whether the current proposal warrants a signal.
1. Instead of monitoring the intersection, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
prepare an addendum to the TIS to determine whether Lots 10, 11, 13 and 15 result in the signal
being warranted. The City does not have a mechanism to require an applicant to construct a signal
outside of the Development Review process.
• Lane Configuration of Two Brothers Drive: BFJ considers the lane configuration relative to the Lot
13 & 15 driveways to provide adequate queuing distance when the intersection is signalized.
(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 Master Plan approved large open space areas in 5 locations. While these open spaces meet this
criterion generally, the preliminary plat also required small useable open spaces for each building. The
applicant accordingly provided a proposed open space for each lot consisting of a paved patio area with
seating, gas grill, and fire pit. The Board included the relevant finding that the applicant must complete
the design of on-site open spaces.
On March 15, the Board discussed the reduction in size of the ground-level open spaces for this final plat
application. In their revised submission on April 19, the applicant indicated they increased the size of
the food truck parking area and added an interior planter and has expanded the at-grade patio area
between Lot 15 and Kennedy Drive.
The area between Lot 15 and Kennedy Drive is shown below. The preliminary plat sketch is on the left
and the current proposal is on the right, with the useable are of each highlighted in light purple. The
scale is the same, though the viewport is slightly shifted.
This space is approximately half of what was approved at preliminary plat. The applicant testified on
March 15 that the grading does not allow for the previously proposed open space to be constructed.
Staff notes the stormwater pond on the right hand side of the screen is not an approved element of this
project, and in fact serves the yet-to-be approved O’Brien Eastview development. Staff considers the
quality of open space for this project should not be reduced because of an adjacent yet-to-be approved
project.
A similar side-by-side comparison of the food truck area is below, with the useable area of each concept
highlighted in orange.
It appears the reduction here is due to the removal of a previously proposed retaining wall and an
expansion of the area proposed for the food truck. Staff recommends the applicant consider how this
“food truck” area could be designed to be more clearly separate from the adjacent drive aisle, and how
this space, given the very limited number of open spaces on the parcel, could/would have utility when a
food truck is not present.
The third open space in this final plat application, the space at the corner of Two Brothers Drive and
O’Brien Farm Road is similar in size to what was proposed at preliminary plat, though a different
configuration.
The applicant testified on March 15 that they have increased the interior common spaces. On both Lots
13 and 15, a side by side comparison concludes that the interior common spaces are approximately the
same as compared to preliminary plat.
2. While each of these changes taken individually may not represent a major change to the project, as
previously noted by Staff, the applicant has increased the number of units proposed for the buildings
on Lots 13 and 15 by thirty and reduced the ground-level open spaces. Staff recommends the Board
revisit the discussion of sufficiency of small open spaces in proximity to the buildings.
3. On the side of Lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive, there is an exterior door that enters into a small (appx
12’ x 12’) room with no other entries. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the
use of this space.
(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.
On the side of the building on Lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive, there is a concrete walkway which
transitions into an asphalt sidewalk. The grading plans shows a gap at the end of the concrete section.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct this grading without changing the
configuration of the walkway or sidewalk as a condition of approval.
The findings of the preliminary plat pertaining to lighting are as follows.
The applicant is proposing 20-ft high metal light poles in the parking areas, and light fixtures
consistent with City standards on the roadways. They have provided a photometric drawing
indicating an average of 1.06 foot-candles, but have included the areas of the stormwater
treatment practices, in which no lights are proposed and which are shielded from the lighted
areas by the proposed buildings, in their calculation. The Board finds that the applicant must
submit at the next stage of review an updated photometric plan, omitting areas outside of the
multifamily development parcels, and outside the stormwater areas within the multifamily
development parcels, from the calculation of average illumination. The updated plan must also
provide a smaller grid spacing to allow evaluation of spillover beyond property lines.
The applicant has provided a revised lighting plan indicating an average of 1.23 foot-candles in the
parking areas and 0.75 foot-candles in the roadway. Maximum illumination in parking areas is 15.2 foot-
candles, and on the roads is 4.1 foot-candles. The applicant also indicates maximum illumination level is
40.3 foot-candles. LDR A.9 limits maximum illumination at ground level to 3 foot-candles. While the
Board typically affords some flexibility in the maximum illumination in the immediate proximity of
fixtures, 40.3 foot-candles is extremely bright compared to a typical parking lot maximum of 8 – 9 foot-
candles, and a typical canopy area of 12 – 15 foot-candles.
4. This criterion is not met. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revisit their lighting
the plan and present the Board with a viable update.
LDR A.10 limits indirect illumination at ground level to 0.3 foot-candles. This limit is typically applied to
the property line. The photometric drawing omits property lines therefore compliance with LDR A.10
cannot be evaluated.
The applicant has provided a written statement that building mounted lights are adjacent and above
doorways and will be less than 30-ft above average grade. The criteria is “Light sources on structures
shall not exceed thirty (30) feet;” average grade does not come into play. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to locate building mounted lights within 5-ft of the top of doorways in order to
prevent the effect being that of a flood light.
Finally, the applicant has proposed building mounted fixtures with upward facing lighting, which is
prohibited.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the deficiencies in the lighting plan
prior to closing the hearing.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06B(2) Parking
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
The applicant has provided 264 on-site parking spaces, 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 therefore considers this application to be
contingent on the concurrent site plan and conditional use application for parking on Lot 17.
14.06C 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.
The Board engaged in an extensive discussion of these criteria on March 15, noting that the new
elevations are plainer than those provided at preliminary plat. Particular emphasis was placed by the
Board on providing window headers to make the building have a more sculptural, as compared to a
massive, appearance.
A side-by-side-by-side comparison of the central tower on Lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive, first as
presented at preliminary plat, second as presented on March 15, and third as presented now, is
provided below. Viewports and scales are approximately the same. Staff has provided this view
because it includes the most elements in single view, but the analysis is applicable to all street-facing
facades of both Lots 13 and 15.
Some of the elements the Board discussed, particularly adding headers to windows in the brick and fiber
cement siding (as distinct from fiber cement panel) portions have been modified. The applicant has
slightly increased glazing on the tower at ground level (this is the location of the open space facing
Kennedy Dr.) However, Staff continues to consider the reduction in variability of glazing, and the
removal of garage openings to represent a reduction in the interest in the elevations compared to what
was presented at preliminary plat and what was recently given final plat approval on Lots 10 and 11 (See
pages 13 - 16 of the approved plans for Lots 10 and 11). Staff notes the Board made approval of height
and setback waivers contingent on provision of final architectural elevations consistent with those
represented at preliminary plat.
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
• 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.
6. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to significantly increase the variability of glazing
and, if creating penetrations into the garage space is no longer viable, significantly improve the
appearance of the garage walls.
The preliminary plat 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. The specific finding is as follows.
The southwest elevation along Two Brothers Drive consists of an entry tower at the west corner,
and then grade drops away to the leasing office. The space in between consists of openings into
the parking garage. The building is located more than 20 feet from the back of sidewalk along
this blank wall. The Board finds that the applicant should place particular emphasis on providing
a visual or functional transition along this façade.
Staff interprets this finding to leave open whether the “particular emphasis” should be architectural or
landscaping. The applicant has provided a row of shrubs in this area, highlighted in yellow in the below
screen shot.
The below images show first the preliminary plat and second the current proposal.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the requirements established by the Board are met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
With the exception of the area of landscaping which was clipped from the edge of the plans mentioned
above, March 15 Staff comments on landscaping focused on landscaping value.
The applicant estimates building cost to be approximately $47,825,950, resulting in a required minimum
landscaping value of $485,759.50. As noted above pertaining to open spaces, the applicant has made
some modifications to the previously provided landscaping plan, but has not updated the schedule of
proposed landscaping value.
8. Since the previous submission resulted in a landscaping value deficiency, Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update the landscaping schedule of values.
9. Further, since the applicant is providing so little open space, Staff recommends the Board consider
declining to allow concrete paver costs as contributing towards the required minimum landscaping
value, and instead requiring the applicant to use that cost to create more interest along the garage
fronts, specifically in the locations of walkways and sidewalks, potentially in the form of artwork or
wall-mounted landscaping. Staff considers the removal of concrete pavers and substitution of
standard concrete would be more than offset by the additional interest along the garage walls.
13.06B(2) requires 10% of interior parking lots containing more than 28 spaces to be landscaped. 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.
10. 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, or whether the Board will allow the applicant to aggregate the
parking on Lots 13 and 15 but not the parking on Lot 17. If the Board does not allow
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.
11. 13.06B(3) requires interior planted islands to have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one
side, and a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. Staff
considers the Board should 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.
13.06B(4)(b) requires one shade tree for every five parking spaces. Such trees are required to be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot. Since this application depends on the parking on Lot 17 for meeting
the minimum parking requirements, Staff considers it would not be inappropriate for the Board to
consider this criterion on an overall parking lot basis rather than parcel by parcel. Taken on an overall
basis, 39 shade trees are provided supporting 144 surface parking spaces. 29 trees are required.
12. Some of the shade trees are in planted islands significantly less than 6-ft in width and may have a
low chance of survival. Staff recommends the Board revisit this criterion once planting islands are
revised to meet minimum dimensions.
13. 13.06B(4)(c) requires a minimum caliper of 2 ½ inches for trees when planted. Some of the
proposed trees are 2 – 2.5” caliper. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
increase the minimum tree size.
C) OTHER
13.14 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 six bicycle racks near the corner of Two Brothers Drive and
O’Brien Farm Road, providing parking for twelve bicycles. Five racks, providing parking for ten
bicycles, are located on Lot 13 between the two buildings. Three racks, providing parking for six
bicycles, are located on the Kennedy Drive side of the building on Lot 15. Though the required
minimum is not provided on Lot 15, given the location of the group of racks between the two
buildings, Staff considers short term bicycle parking to be adequate and recommends the Board
consider short term bicycle parking requirements to be met.
Long Term Bike Storage
The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages.
14. On Lot 13, there are two indoor bike parking areas, one for 47 bikes and one for 62 bikes,
totaling 109 bikes. 126 are required. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
revise the plan to meet the required minimum long-term bike parking without reducing interior
common space availability.
15. It appears there may be clothes lockers in the 62-bike room on Lot 13, but no label is provided.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify.
On Lot 15, there are three indoor bike parking areas, providing for 128 bikes, plus an additional 8
spaces for e-bike storage. Bicycle parking is met for Lot 15.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner