HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-05 - Supplemental - 0255 Kennedy Drive (58)
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: June 21, 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 and May 4, 2022. The Board continued the
hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant to address outstanding concerns on the application.
The applicant provided revised materials on June 7. Review of these revised materials is incorporated
herein; criteria which Staff considers the Board to have indicated satisfied have been removed from this
report. The Board and applicant are encouraged to review the March 15 and May 4 Staff reports and
ask questions about any of the items excluded from the below on which they would like additional
clarification.
COMMENTS
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 May 4, the applicant and Board discussed the proposed traffic signal at Kennedy Drive and Two
Brothers Drive. The applicant indicated the signal is warranted when construction of Lots 10, 11, 13 & 15
is complete. Since all four lots will not be completed at the same time, the applicant suggested they install
the signal with the infrastructure work and monitor the traffic, activating the signal at such time as it
becomes warranted.
There were questions of whether it would be appropriate to activate a signal before it is warranted. Staff
requested feedback from BFJ on the applicant’s proposal. BFJ’s comments are provided below.
The applicant should go ahead and install the signal on a flashing basis with the pedestrian call
opportunity for a walk and red light signal. Based on the signal warrant analysis the signal
seems to be warranted when roughly 85% of all units (total development, combined) are
occupied. That could become the threshold occupancy to activate the full signal.
85% is determined based on the 100 volume threshold on the minor road approach (Two
Brothers, AM Peak) divided by the volume of 116 projected in Table 6.
Staff supports BFJ’s recommendation to include a condition requiring the signal to be activated when 85%
of the units approved for Lots 10, 11, 13 & 15 reach occupancy. The number of units on each lot are as
follows.
Lot 10 47
Lot 11 47
Lot 13 124
Lot 15 127
1. 85% of the total units would be 294 units, meaning the signal would be activated at occupancy of
either the third or fourth building. Staff recommends the Board consider including a condition that the
signal be activated at occupancy of the building containing the 294th unit in Hillside Phase 2, or if
warranted sooner and demonstrated by a traffic study, subject to review and approval of the Director
of Public Works.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
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.
On March 15 and May 4, the Board reviewed the proposed architecture of the two buildings. Particular
emphasis was on creating the architectural interest approved at preliminary plat and on creating a
complimentary appearance with the buildings approved on Lots 10 and 11. On May 4, the applicant
presented that they added headers to the windows and decorative panels along the blank parking
garage walls.
2. With the most recent submission, the applicant has provided additional but not all building
elevations. Staff recommends the Board confirm the facades not shown will be similarly updated to
reflect window headers and garage panels (where applicable). If so, Staff considers this can be a
condition of approval.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
The Board on May 4 had an extensive conversation about whether the applicant’s proposed landscaping
was adequate and what elements could contribute towards the required minimum landscaping value.
The applicant estimates building cost to be approximately $47,825,950, resulting in a required minimum
landscaping value of $485,759.50.
Staff offers clarification on the applicant’s statement of May 4 that approval #SD-21-25 for Lots 10 & 11
allows streetscape elements to be credited towards the required minimum landscaping budget on Lots
12 – 15. The finding of #SD-21-25 specifically reads as follows.
The Board finds the applicant may in the future be allowed credit for the remaining streetscape
elements towards the required minimum landscaping budget on Lots 12 – 15 as follows, so long as
the objectives of the landscaping standards are otherwise met.
Concrete Paving $15,804
Colored concrete paving on sidewalks/rec
path
$19,272
Brick crosswalk $40,110
Flush granite curb $11,650
Silva Cells for tree planting $54,995
Total $141,831
The above elements are not typically required for streets. However, the applicant has proposed
these elements in support of their objective of creating a pedestrian oriented development, which
the Board supports in exchange for reduced setbacks and increased height. These values include
only the incremental cost over standard features (asphalt paving, standard concrete, crosswalk
striping, and concrete curb).
The applicant has provided an updated landscaping budget. The total updated non-plant budget
includes, in addition to colored concrete and concrete pavers, a single $2,500 tree grate, 12 bollards
totaling $9,936, and 14 bike racks totaling $3,864. Staff has excluded bike racks since these are a
required site element and it is the Board’s strong precedent to exclude them except where they provide
additional interest through a decorative appearance. Staff also recommends the Board exclude bollards
for the same reason. Staff supports inclusion of the tree grate because it is located in an on-site open
space and supports the landscaping standards.
With the above adjustments, the applicant’s updated landscaping budget is as follows.
Colored Concrete & Concrete Pavers* $69,515
Iron Tree Grate $2,500
Trees & Shrubs $262,015.50
Perennials & Grasses $39,909.50
Total $373,940
Deficit $111,819.50
*this number is the incremental cost over standard concrete
3. On May 4, Board members indicated they felt the site was adequately landscaped and were
inclined to allow the deficit to be made up using the streetscape elements approved in #SD-
21-25. Staff recommends the Board affirm their conclusions of 5/4 by reviewing of the
provided revised landscaping plans.
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
Long Term Bike Storage
The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages.
4. 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.
Phasing
The applicant has included in their 6/7 submission a cover letter asking the Board for an
extended timeline in which to construct the project. In particular, they are requesting that the
Board extend the timeline to obtain a zoning permit for each of Lots 13 and 15 to be required
before May 2025, or approximately three years.
LDR 17.04 provides the following information pertaining to expiration of approvals.
17.04B. Expiration of Approvals. All site plan, conditional use, variances, design review, and
miscellaneous application approvals shall expire six (6) months from the date of their approval by the
Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, unless:
(a) A zoning permit is issued for the project;
(b) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has granted a longer period for a
multi-phase development or for other projects that may reasonably require a longer period before
commencement of the permitted project; or,
(c) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has approved a request for
extension of the approval. The Board or Administrative Officer may approve one (1) extension to an
applicant of an approval if reapplication takes place before the approval has expired and if the
Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Board or Administrative Officer may specify a period of time of
up to one (1) year for the extension.
Preliminary plat amendment #SD-21-13 was to add phasing to the multifamily phase of the
Hillside master plan area. It included a timeline that the applicant must obtain final plat for all
the multifamily buildings, but did not include extension of the time between final plat and
zoning permit for individual buildings.
17.04B(b) permits the Board to extend the timeline for projects that may reasonably require a
longer period before commencement. Given that these two buildings will be co-permitted
and represent 251 units, Staff recommends the Board consider granting the applicant’s
request to allow a longer period before requiring a zoning permit to be issued or expiration of
this approval.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner