Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/05/2019 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 FEBRUARY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 February 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E. Langfeldt, A. Gill 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted the 19 February meeting will be held at the Police Station. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-18-34 of O’Brien Home Farm for the next phase of previously approved master plan for 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The phase consists of 6 multi-family residential buildings with 322 units, and a single-story parking structure, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Langfeldt said the proposed plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The will be constructing 322 apartments over the 6 buildings (the original number was 340). The property is primarily in the R-12 district which allows this density. They could look to go higher if the Board wanted that. There is now a good transition from the 2-story condos on the east side. Of the initial phase, 17 units are completed, and they are ahead in marketing. The plan is to build the currently proposed units concurrently with those in the previous phase. Mr. Langfeldt showed a plan and indicated what has been built and where the units in the current application will go. Mr. Kochman asked how far a child would have to go to find a place to play ball. Mr. Langfeldt identified parks and green spaces and noted there is a playground in the large park. Mr. Kochman suggested something closer. Mr. Gill noted an area where there will be amenities such as a barbeque pool, etc. Mr. Langfeldt said they expect to see more children in the single family areas than in the apartments. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: Staff suggests substituting “PUD” for “lot” relative to the non‐residential buildings to allow these buildings to be considered principal buildings containing “accessory uses.” Members were OK with the flexibility of “principal buildings with accessory uses.” With regard to the height waiver request, Mr. Langfeldt showed some renderings from different viewpoints. He also indicated under-building parking and noted the use of different materials to create more visual interest. Mr. Kochman did not find the buildings “beautiful” and suggested more of an “aesthetic effort,” something “less boxy.” Mr. Behr felt it was a very contemporary style, the current design trend. He would prefer more variety, but the design doesn’t bother him. Mr. Miller noted that the street trees are shown as “baby trees” and will grow significantly in 30 years. Mr. Gill said they have an extensive pallet of trees (no ash trees), and there will be a significant landscaping requirement as well. Ms. Keene read the list of specifically approved varieties of trees. Mr. Wilking suggested something tall to buffer the change from town homes to multi-family buildings. Mr. Langfeldt said current residents in the town homes have been told the multi-family buildings are coming. Members were OK with the height request. Regarding a traffic study, Mr. Langfeldt noted they had a study done for the whole development which also was presented at Act 250. Ms. Keene said the study did address what is being proposed in this sketch plan. Mr. Kochman repeated his request to “squeeze in” a little play area closer to the buildings. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Gill noted the existence of a green area near the stormwater pond. Mr. Langfeldt said they might possibly use some of the landscaping money for amenities. Members were concerned with “head in” parking on the bend of Two Brothers Drive. Mr. Langfeldt felt they could do some reconfiguration of that. Mr. Wilking suggested possibly widening the road and having parallel parking on each side. He was specifically concerned with people back out into traffic coming around the bend. Mr. Miller read into the record the nature of a Sketch Plan and stressed that no decision is provided to the applicant. There was no public comment on this application. The sketch plan was concluded. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 6. Other Business: Mr. Wilking recused himself during this item due to a potential conflict of interest. It was noted that Dorset Meadows has requested to postpone their scheduled hearing from 5 March to 19 March. The Board was OK with this and will address it with a formal motion on 5 March. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:06 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.     #SD‐18‐34  1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐34_455 Kennedy Dr_OBrien Farm Rd  LLC_Sketch_2019‐02‐05.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: February 1, 2019  Plans received: December 20, 2018  455 Kennedy Drive  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐34  Meeting date: February 5, 2019  Owner/Applicant  O’Brien Farm Road, LLC and O’Brien Home Farm, LLC  1855 Williston Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Engineer  Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.  164 Main Street  Colchester, VT 05446  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0970‐00255  Residential 12, Commercial 1‐LR, Residential 1‐PRD Zoning Districts  29.54 acres      Location Map          #SD‐18‐34  2       PROJECT DESCRPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐34 of O’Brien Home Farm for the next phase of a previously approved  master plan for 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space.  The phase consists of 6 multi‐family  residential buildings with 322 units, and a single‐story parking structure, 255 Kennedy Drive.    PERMIT HISTORY    The PUD is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1 with Limited Retail, and Residential 1‐PRD Zoning  districts.  The portion of the property that is the subject of this application crosses all three zoning  districts though the majority is in the Residential 12 district.  The Project received master plan approval  in 2016 (#MP‐16‐03).  Staff considers the proposed project does not trigger any of the criterion for  master plan amendment.  The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site plan  standards, and the standards of the applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses.     COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)  have reviewed the plans submitted on 12/20/2018 and offer the following comments.    CONTEXT    The Project has received master plan approval for the overall Project’s wetland impacts, pedestrian  access to abutting properties, and pedestrian circulation, street layout, and open space.  No changes are  proposed to these approved elements therefore this sketch plan review omits discussion of them.    The prior phase approved 118 units in single family and two family homes.  This application includes 322  units, for a total of 440 units, which is 18 units fewer than in the master plan approval.  This application  also includes 15,000 square feet of office space in a building the applicant describes as a placeholder for  a small office building on the corner of Kennedy and Two Brothers Drives.      1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the Applicant whether there is another phase planned  or whether they simply “over approved” at master plan and are choosing for the current  proposal to represent the full build‐out of the approved PUD.    The Applicant has prepared a lengthy application narrative describing how they believe each of the PUD  criteria are addressed.  As usual, Staff has only highlighted topics which Staff considers require Board  feedback at this stage of review.    Applicant’s project description:  The Project proposes the construction of approximately 322 dwelling units which will be located in six  buildings. The buildings will be a combination of one and two‐bedroom apartments, with floor plans  ranging from approximately 500‐1,250 square feet.  Overall there will be three distinct building types  which are labeled on the Site Plan attached at Exhibit 002.  These three distinct building types will be  repeated in different locations; however, it is anticipated that color palette variations and the variety      #SD‐18‐34  3 of form and mass will give each building a distinct but cohesive presence. It is also the case that each  building will set up slightly differently with its surroundings given the contours of the land.       In addition to the six apartment buildings, two additional structures are proposed.  An accessory use  tenant amenity building will be located at the top of the hill on a plateau with views to the northeast  and west.  This building is planned to be architecturally consistent with the apartments and will include  a pool, outdoor lounge area, and other tenant amenities.  It is expected that residents will primarily  walk to this centralized location from their nearby residences and so only a few additional parking  spaces are provided.    A. ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Lots  The Applicant is proposing six large residential buildings and two smaller non‐residential buildings.  The  existing lot lines intersect the proposed development in a manner that does not relate to the proposed  development.      2. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to re‐subdivide the relevant lots to create one lot  for each residential building.  In addition to supporting recordkeeping for the PUD, doing this  would support the master plan condition allowing only site plan review for a single structure on a  single lot with its associated parking.  Staff considers no separate sketch plan application is needed  for this suggested resubdivision.     Non‐Residential Structures  The Applicant has indicated in their narrative that the two smaller buildings are proposed to be non‐ residential uses.  The larger building, located in the R1‐PRD zoning district at the South of the property, is  proposed to contain a pool, outdoor lounge and other tenant amenities.  In other PUDs, the Board has  categorized this structure as Indoor Recreation.  Indoor Recreation is not an allowed use in this zoning  district.  The Applicant has requested that the building be considered an accessory structure containing  an accessory use.    Accessory structure or building. A structure detached from a principal building on the same lot and  customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal building or use. The accessory structure shall be  located on the same lot. Prefabricated buildings may be regulated as accessory structures. Any portion  of a principal building developed or intended to be devoted to an accessory use is not an accessory  structure. Where an accessory building is attached to the principal building in a substantial manner, as  by a wall or roof, the accessory building shall be considered part of the principal building. Private  garages must meet applicable setback requirements for principal structures.  Utility cabinets that meet  the requirements of Section 13.18 shall not be considered accessory structures.      Accessory use. A use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or  purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall  be located on the same lot. An accessory use shall not be accessory to another accessory use.    3. In addition to the uses not being allowed in the district, the larger of the two proposed non‐ residential building is not located on the same lot as any of the proposed residential buildings.   Staff considers the Board may wish to consider it acceptable to substitute the word “PUD” for “lot”  in the above definitions.          #SD‐18‐34  4 4. Staff considers the larger of the two proposed non‐residential buildings cannot be considered an  accessory structure because it does not meet the requirements of being 15 feet or less in height  (25 feet if setback 30 feet from all property lines) and because as described by the applicant, it will  contain a basement.  However, should the Board consider it acceptable to substitute the word  “PUD” for “lot” in the definition of Accessory Use, Staff considers the building could be approved  as a principal structure containing an accessory use.  Multiple principal buildings on the same lot  is allowed in a PUD under 3.09C(1).    The smaller of the two building, located in the R12 district, is proposed to be either a future commercial  office or limited retail.  Offices are allowed subject to PUD review, and limited neighborhood commercial  is allowed.  Staff considers that if this building would not be located on it’s own lot, it would be subject to  review as a PUD.  Nonetheless, as an allowed use, this building would not need to be considered an  accessory structure.      Heights  Within  the  R12  zoning  district,  the  maximum  height  of  flat‐roof principal  buildings is  35‐feet.   The  applicant is proposing that the two “inner” of the six residential buildings be four habitable stories, and  the four “outer” of the six residential buildings be three habitable stories.  The Applicant’s calculation  excludes a parking level which is below grade on the uphill side and above grade on the downhill side.   Staff considers each of the buildings is likely to require a height waiver, with the “inner” buildings being  around 12 to 14 feet higher than the standard and the “outer” buildings being 2 to 4 feet higher.  The  Applicant has provided preliminary architectural renderings showing how buildings of the proposed scale  will look from Kennedy Drive and from the interior street network.     5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they are comfortable with the  height waiver request, and what additional information or design features they would need to feel  comfortable granting the request at the preliminary/final plat stage of review.      B. PUD STANDARDS  PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection (erosion control  and wetland impacts), compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public  infrastructure.  Of these, only wetland impacts were fully addressed at the master plan level, with positive  findings regarding the level of detail available at that time for the other criteria.  The applicant prepared  a traffic study addressing full‐build which the Board found acceptable at the final plat for the single and  two‐family portion of the development.    Staff considers the Board should focus their discussion at the sketch plan level on the following criteria.    (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.  The Applicant has submitted preliminary architectural renderings to demonstrate the massing of the  proposed buildings as viewed from Kennedy Drive and from the interior street network.    6. Staff considers this criterion goes hand in hand with the Applicant’s requested height waiver and  recommends  the  Board  discuss  what  additional  information  they  will  need  to  evaluate  this  criterion at the next stage of review with the applicant.       #SD‐18‐34  5 (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.  The Applicant has indicated that they would like the already‐approved open space to be considered as  meeting this criterion.  The master plan finding for this criterion is as follows.  The Project’s layout includes open space easements that connect to areas to the east of project  area and the applicant has indicated this was done to allow for the possibility of future pedestrian  connections to other neighborhoods and open space.  At the level of review available during  Master Plan, the Board finds the project meets this criterion.  The single and two‐family residential final plat finding for this criterion is as follows.  The proposed project provides for a park/open space area in the middle of the site (Lot #6 and  open space easements associated with Lots #7 and #9) and northern open space area as part of  Lot #8.  Two (2) 30 foot wide easements connect the open spaces of Lot #6 with undeveloped land  to the east.  This creates the opportunity for contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels.   The Board considers this standard met.  Staff considers the previous approvals did not discuss the multi‐family buildings, and in particular the  master plan finding indicates additional review is needed, therefore the Board should discuss whether  they consider existing approved open spaces adequate for the multi‐family buildings.    7. The Applicant’s provided plans do not explicitly include open spaces in the multifamily building  area.  While staff considers the approved central open space to be a significant amenity, Staff  recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the opportunity to provide small open spaces in  the proximity of these buildings where tenants may wish to bring their dinner outside or read a  book.   (10)   The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the  affected district(s).  The  Goals  of  the  Comprehensive  Plan  pertain  to  affordability,  walkability,  sustainability,  and  being  opportunity  oriented.    The  objectives  of  the  Comprehensive  Plan specific to this district pertain to  affordable housing with access to neighborhood amenities, infill development, creation of transitions  between  the  Airport  and  other  uses,  and  compatibility  between  University  land  uses  and  existing  development and conservation.    The Applicant considers that the Project’s consistency with the open space goals of the comprehensive  plan are addressed as part of other criteria.  They have provided a discussion of the planned price points  of the proposed units in their application narrative.  While the lower price points described are for the  smaller units, Staff has no concerns with the applicant’s compliance with this criterion.     Staff  considers  that  positive  findings  pertaining  to  fire  protection  and  public  infrastructure  are  a  requirement of this phase, and Fire, Public Works, and Stormwater departments will be providing detailed  feedback at subsequent stages of review.  At this time, DPW had no particular concerns with the provided  materials.  The Fire Department indicated they are interested in taking a close look at access in the next  stage of review.    C. SITE PLAN STANDARDS  General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of  structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.       #SD‐18‐34  6 Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.    Staff considers concerns related to relationship of structures to the site will be discussed when the Board  discusses height and is not including further commentary here.    B(2) Parking  8. Staff considers the proposed head‐in parking on Two Brothers Drive, particularly that on the bend,  potentially problematic and recommends the Board discuss whether the applicant can switch it  for parallel parking, and if not, that the Board allow the Director of Public Works to weigh in on  whether he would have concerns about accepting a road with this parking configuration.    Staff calls to the Board’s attention the proposed parking deck in the multi‐family area.  Staff considers this  deck to be an elegant solution to providing parking without creating large unbroken areas of pavement.    The parking deck is exempt from the requirement for landscape islands.    C. Disposal of Waste  The applicant has indicated solid waste handling areas on the plan.      9. While Staff considers it a minor concern, one waste location on the west of the parking deck is  problematic  in  that  it  interrupts  the  line  of  a  sidewalk  and  recommends  the  Board  ask  the  Applicant to reconfigure this area.    D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements  The Applicant has not provided any information at this time as to how they will comply with these criteria.      10. In addition to the typical landscape plans, Staff recommends the Board request the applicant  provide calculations of interior parking lot landscaping to facilitate future reviews.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing.    Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    1 South Burlington Development Review Board C/o Ms. Marla Keen, Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Application for Development Review Hillside at O’Brien Farm Dear Board Members: O’Brien Farm Road, LLC (“Applicant”) is filing for Sketch Plan Review for a proposed development of approximately 322 multi-family dwelling units, a 2,000-6,000 square foot accessory tenant amenity building (to include an in-ground outdoor swimming pool and interior amenity space), a footprint lot for a future commercial office or potential limited retail use, as well as associated parking (including construction of a parking deck), landscaping and stormwater improvements. This proposed development will be located on six existing lots adjacent to Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue and will make use of road networks and improvements permitted in City of South Burlington Final Plat Approval SD-17-17 (the “Final Plat” or the “Final Plat Approval”), as well as South Burlington Master Plan Approval MP-16-03, as amended at MP-17-01 (collectively herein the “Master Plan” or the “Master Plan Approval”), hereafter referred to as the “Project.” A Sketch Plan review application for the Project is attached as Exhibit 001. A check for the requisite fee is also enclosed. Please note that we have included $.02/square foot for the maximum proposed square footage of the tenant amenity building in this fee at the request of the City, and that this is not in any way intended to characterize the proposed structure as other than an accessory use that is requested. Attached as Exhibit 002 to this Application, please find a site plan for the Project which meets the requirements outlined at Appendix E of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations adopted May 12, 2003, with Amendments adopted Jul 16, 2018, Effective August 6, 2018, hereafter the “Regulations.” The below narrative, required per Appendix E of the Regulations is broken into the following sections for your convenience and ease of reference: I. Parcel and Project Background Summary of Master Plan Findings; II. Detailed Project Description; III. Existing Findings of Fact Proposed Focus of Current Review; IV. Discussion of Key Issues for Sketch Plan Review (Height Waiver Requested); V. Conclusion. We appreciate your review and consideration of the application put forward. Please note that key questions for your review are in bold italic print for ease of reference. As discussed herein, we believe that this Project is in keeping with the spirit of the Master Plan and Final Plat approvals issued in 2017. We are excited to bring this phase of the Project forward, and we are looking forward to working with you all to permit and construct this project expeditiously. I. Parcel and Project Background Summary of Master Plan Findings. 2 As mentioned above the Project is currently outlined in significant detail in two previous permits issued by the South Burlington Development Review Board (the “Board”). The Master Plan Approval and the Final Plat Approval, Exhibit 003 and Exhibit 004 to this Application. The Master Plan approval is the overarching permit which contemplated the Project. Given this, key findings of the Master Plan are summarized below. A. The Master Plan Approval was issued on February 9 th, 2017 and was subsequently amended on July 19th 2017. B. The Master Plan contemplated the development of 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 square feet of commercial space in total. So far, 118 single family and duplex style townhomes have been permitted, leaving a balance of 340 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of commercial space within the Master Plan area for use in the six commercial lots currently being discussed. C. The Master Plan defined open space and street networks for the Project area that contemplated the full build-out of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 of commercial space. D. In the Master Plan the Board found that “pedestrian circulation patterns, street layout and open spaces as proposed at the Master Plan level [are] acceptable.” E. The Master Plan allowed encroachment into known Class III wetlands, specifically relevant to the Project proposed now, as a Class III wetland is present on the Project lots. F. The Board found that the Master Plan proposed a combination of housing that is “compatible with the neighboring areas.” This is particularly important as the Master Plan did contemplate and reference large buildings where the Project is currently proposed. G. Of importance, and contemplated in the above-referenced finding regarding neighborhood compatibility, the Board found in the Master Plan that: “it is supportive of increased height in those zones.” “Those Zones” referring to Zones 2A and 2B of the Master Plan, which are the lots currently discussed in the Project. H. The board found that the cost of ornamental grasses and perennials could be used to meet the landscaping budget minimums of projects within the Master Plan. These will surely be proposed as part of future landscape plans. I. The Board waived the requirement of sketch plan review. We are nevertheless proceeding with sketch plan review because we are hoping for some guidance from the Board on the proposed height waiver and the general direction of the Project. J. The Board waived the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1), which required large landscape buffers in certain locations. None will be proposed. K. The Board waived the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) which required permanent pedestrian easements through blocks of 600 feet or more in length. No additional easements are now proposed, and none are required. L. The Board issued a waiver for buildings greater than five stories in height to have six-foot front setbacks. Current setbacks are in line with this waiver, though no structures greater than five stories are proposed. M. The Board found that site plan review only (not PUD review) was required when reviewing a single structure proposed on a single lot in the Master Plan. N. The Board found that Preliminary Plat Review is not required when requesting an amendment to an already approved final plat. As outlined above, the Project makes use of many of the findings from the Master Plan as the basis for what is proposed. The Board may well recall the extensive conversations we had regarding the need for increased building height during the Master Plan hearings in order to achieve the desired 3 density of the Master Plan area as identified as an objective in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. The Project currently does propose increased building heights to allow for the density of the Master Plan to be achieved. This is consistent with the conversations that we had during the Master Plan permit process, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. II. Detailed Project Description A. Building Types: As mentioned above the Project proposes the construction of approximately 322 dwelling units which will be located in six buildings. The buildings will be a combination of one and two-bedroom apartments, with floor plans ranging from approximately 500-1,250 square feet. Overall there will be three distinct building types which are labeled on the Site Plan attached at Exhibit 002. These three distinct building types will be repeated in different locations; however, it is anticipated that color palette variations and the variety of form and mass will give each building a distinct but cohesive presence. It is also the case that each building will set up slightly differently with its surroundings given the contours of the land. In addition to the six apartment buildings, two additional structures are proposed. An accessory use tenant amenity building will be located at the top of the hill on a plateau with views to the northeast and west. This building is planned to be architecturally consistent with the apartments and will include a pool, outdoor lounge area, and other tenant amenities. It is expected that residents will primarily walk to this centralized location from their nearby residences and so only a few additional parking spaces are provided. This is both an efficient use of land as well as a reduction in the project’s impervious surface requirements. There is also a placeholder on the site plan for a small office building on the corner of Kennedy and Two Brothers Drive. We are hopeful that this building can house some accessory tenant amenities and services on the first floor, and some office space that will be available to rent on the second and/or third floor. We believe that any commercial use in this building can share parking with the apartments as they will operate at different times. Currently the project will seek approval for a footprint lot in this location, with the provision for up to 15,000 square feet of office/commercial space. No specific structure is proposed at this time. B. Project Land/Slope: As the Board well knows, the Project site is a “Hillside,” and as such there are significant grading challenges present. The Board should think of each building shown as having a ground level that is exposed on the Kennedy Drive side (west elevation), but below grade on the Old Farm Road side (east elevation). Similarly, the parking deck proposed will be entered on the low side for the first level, but will be at grade with the building entrance to the east/Old Farm Road side. The proposed accessory tenant amenity building would also be two stories facing the street. This walkout configuration for all of the buildings does add complexities to the height limitations faced by the Project and the need for a height waiver in certain areas. C. Deviations with Approved Final Plat and Master Plan: 4 There are a few deviations from the original Master Plan and Final Plat approval which are worth noting, and which will be included in future applications. Amendments to those approvals will need to be filed simultaneous with Preliminary Plat as needed to achieve the goals of the Project. The changes proposed are fairly minor, and consist of: 1. The addition of land to the Master Plan area that was set aside in the “remaining lands,” for the parking located to the north of the parking deck and to facilitate the entrance to the underground parking proposed for Lot 15, as well as the addition of land from the remaining lands to accommodate the location of the proposed tenant amenity building. 2. We have included a few more head-in parking spaces off of Two-Brothers Drive, proximate to the proposed tenant amenity building which we believe will require a minor amendment to the Master Plan, which only showed six spaces in this location. 3. We have added on-street parking to O’Brien Farm Road in front of each commercial building to allow for more visitor parking in the Project site. The recreation path that has been approved remains, but has been widened to 9’ in order to ensure that bikers have plenty of room to avoid car doors as the parking would be adjacent to the proposed recreation path. The street trees formerly proposed between the recreation path and the street would likely be relocated to the building side, or potentially some planters or other more urban amenity will be added. Absent the above-referenced deviations, the Project is in line with what was reviewed and permitted by the Master Plan and Final Plat. D. Building Size and Locations: The City determines height based on the average “pre-construction grade” of the Project site. This calculation is difficult to complete on a project of this scale and is also not very telling as to the real perceived impacts of the Project. In our case, the site will be raised as much as 8 feet in certain spots with fill, and will similarly have areas where 6-8’ of fill is cut out and removed. This is to line up with the road that the Board and City have already approved, and to evenly grade the site such that it lines up with the Hillside neighborhood, which is also approved and under construction. For this reason, pre- construction grade heights are not particularly useful. A building on an 8’ fill will appear very short, and a building in an 8’ cut will appear very tall. While we can and will calculate these details for future hearings as needed to issue specific waivers in line with the Regulations, for the purpose of this discussion, we would like to focus on the impacts as they will be perceived, not relative to a baseline that will change. As outlined on the site plan, the structures proposed will be at most four occupiable stories over a podium base, meaning four stories of residential over a parking garage level that is exposed on one side. As discussed above, that parking level would be visible from the downhill (Kennedy Drive) side, and underground when viewed from the uphill side. Where you are standing will dictate how tall the building appears. The buildings are still being designed, but their current design has flat roofs such that mechanical equipment may be located on the rooftops, freeing up more space in the limited open areas on site for landscaping and tenant space. Similarly, the Applicant is working closely with its Architect to develop methods for screening the underground parking on the downhill side of each building. 5 As you will see, the Applicant has been careful to continue the pattern of stepping up density as we move away from the existing residential homes on Eldredge Street. In keeping with the pattern of the Master Plan, we have proposed a three-story building as the first component heading north on Kennedy Drive. We have also used a standalone office lot to break up the mass of the larger four-story buildings proposed, which we have set back from Kennedy Drive fairly substantially. A pond and a significant amount of landscaping are also proposed in the buffer for screening and transition purposes, which will further reduce building impacts as perceived from Kennedy Drive. The required landscape budget for this project will be quite extensive, therefore, the Applicant is confident a very strong landscape buffer can be established along Kennedy Drive, and the Applicant will present that plan at future hearings. The two buildings on the highest part of the site (visible from Old Farm Road) are proposed at three stories as well. Lastly, the building that abuts our duplex homes is proposed to step back, being three stories adjacent to the duplexes and then stepping up to four stories in the middle. Important to note is that those duplexes on the downhill side of the street are 2-stories at the east (street) elevation and 3-stories at the west elevation. On the uphill side of the street those duplexes are 3-stories on the west (street) elevation and 2-stories on the east (uphill) elevation. The Applicant has provided renderings to illustrate the mass, locations and slope of the land, parking and buildings proposed, and will discuss those renderings in detail later in this application. E. Parking Requirements and Parking Proposed: The Applicant has attached a spreadsheet at Exhibit 011 which outlines the parking proposed in the Project by building lot, as well as the parking required by the Regulations by building lot. The spreadsheet outlines the number of dwelling units (one and two bedroom) and provides for the calculations required to conform to the requirements listed at Table 13-1. As you will see, the Project is proposing sufficient parking on each lot to meet the requirements of the Regulations. Additionally, the Project is proposing 39 on-street parking spaces that are not included in this calculation. The Applicant believes that this is sufficient parking for the needs of the Project. As part of future applications, a shared parking analysis may, if requested, be conducted to confirm that the site can support the small office structure proposed. At this time the Applicant is confident that the impacts of shared parking for any commercial/office use will be negligible. III. Existing Findings of Fact Proposed Focus of Current Review; As outlined above, the Project has already undergone extensive review within the Master Plan and Final Plat process and deviations from that plan are few. Below we have outlined the PUD review criteria listed at Section 15.18(A). For each criterion we have outlined the previous finding, and any proposed changes that would impact that finding. As you will see, many of these criteria have already been reviewed, and the Applicant is hopeful that those items can be left out of future applications. We would request that the board provide an indication at this Sketch Plan as to whether they concur that noted items are settled, such that we may focus our attention in future applications on a more limited scope to help facilitate a more in-depth discussion on the items that are proposed or changing, and avoid rehashing items that are settled in existing permits. (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. 6 The Final Plat and the Master Plan did not reserve sewer capacity for the currently proposed Project. Given this, preliminary allocations will be obtained and submitted. Applicant does not anticipate any issues with meeting this criterion. (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The Final Plat and the Master Plan did not propose specific erosion control measures for the current Project. This criterion will be address in detail in future applications and will be met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Applicant submitted a traffic study dated August 8, 2016, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit 006. The Applicant also submitted a letter dated November 17, 2016, which is attached to this application as Exhibit 007. The traffic impact study taken jointly with the letter dated November 17, 2016, clearly indicated that 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of commercial space could be developed with 428 PM peak hour trips. It found that the roads, lights, crosswalks, etc., proposed and approved in the Final Plat were adequate for this trip generation. This report prompted a finding by the Board which states: “A traffic study dated August 8, 2016 was prepared by Lamoureux and Dickinson. The Board concurs with its findings and considers this standard met.” The Project currently proposes 322 apartments and less than 45,000 square foot of commercial space. Given this, the previous approvals will not be exceeded and the Applicant believes this standard is met. Please confirm the Board’s concurrence. (A)(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. The Project currently proposes no changes or additional impacts to wetlands, streams, etc. The Project site is already cleared, environmentally sensitive areas were delineated in the Master Plan and Final Plat and conserved, and no new impacts are proposed. Given this, we believe this criterion is met. Please advise if the board feels that additional information is required on this criterion. (A)(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. In discussing this Criterion, the Board stated in the Final Plat: “The purpose of the Residential 12 Zoning District is to encourage high-density residential use. The proposed project included in this final plat is compact but does not qualify as high density for the purposes of the LDR’s. The Master Plan for this site, however, contemplates as many as 458 housing units, which would bring the density of the site to nearly 12 units per acre, and overall 7 the project and its components are designed to be compatible with planned development patterns.” As discussed extensively during the Final Plat, the residential housing component of Hillside at O’Brien Farm (currently under construction), enabled a transition from the existing development pattern of single family and townhomes, to the Master Plan proposed dense residential development, where the density of the zoning district would be achieved. This finding explicitly states the Board’s desire that the underlying density of the land be achieved. The only way to make the transition work, and to be compatible with surrounding projects, was to cluster a majority of the density in the land to the north side of the Project parcel, where no current development pattern existed. In order for this to work, we discussed extensively at the time that a height waiver would be needed. This Project proposes that height waiver, although to a lesser degree than was discussed during the Master Plan permit hearings, as well as a project that will create nearly the full density potential of all of the underlying land within the Master Plan. Given this, we request that the Board will plan to limit review of this criterion to visual compatibility, as it seems very clear that the zoning district intentions are being fulfilled, per the previous findings of the Board. (A)(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. The Master Plan and Final Plat confirmed open space areas, trail connections, sidewalk and pedestrian connections contemplating the full build-out of 458 residential units and up to 45,000 square feet of commercial space. The Master Plan and Final Plat specifically contemplated development where the Project currently proposes it. Given this, we request that the Board confirm that this criterion is met, and that the previous findings regarding open space still control. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The layout of the major roads and lots that are part of the Project was reviewed by the Fire Chief. The current Project proposes only one minor changes to that layout which involve the addition of on street parking. The Applicant believes that review of this criterion should therefore be limited to the impacts of the proposed new parking, as well as site plan review for the individual buildings and parking areas proposed. We will look forward to the comments of the Fire Chief on this subject, and will incorporate suggestions into future applications as required. (A)(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 landowners. All roads, recreation paths and stormwater facilities that were part of the Master Plan and Final Plat have been fully evaluated under this criterion and approved. We are not proposing any modification to those approved roads, paths or stormwater ponds that would impact the extension of such services. These paths will flow through the site as outlined in the Master Plan and Final Plat. Given this, we believe this criterion is met and request the Board confirm they concur. 8 (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner t hat 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. All roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths and lighting within this project have been reviewed and approved in the Final Plat and Master Plan. Street lights, sidewalk widths, intersection and road widths, road grades, curvature, etc., were evaluated and reviewed in detail. The Project currently proposes a majority of work that is the construction of driveways and parking areas only. The only changes to the road network planned are the addition of some on-street parking. We would request that review under this criterion be limited to the additional parking proposed only. We will certainly work with the Director of Public Works to confirm that the proposed changes are workable, and will make any changes required. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). In the Final Plat the Board specifically found that the parkland and open space proposed is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. This was in the context of the entire development, including the commercial area then called Zone 2A and 2B. Given this, we believe that the parkland and open space proposed currently are adequate and approved by the Board. Therefore, we do not plan to address this further in our application. In addition to adequacy of park and open space land, another major focus of the Comprehensive Plan is affordability of housing. During the Final Plat and Master Plan hearings the Board had extensive conversations with the Applicant regarding the proposed affordability of dwellings created, in the context of “consistency” with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, the Applicant made clear that all proposed dwellings in the Master Plan and Final Plat would be market-rate housing, and that a range of housing types was proposed enabling some reasonable and accessible price points throughout the neighborhood compared to existing market conditions. Hillside does have current offerings available which are priced below 120% AMI (see attached affordability chart from Vermont Housing Finance Authority for applicable pricing). We are selling new high quality three-bedroom townhomes in the $350,000 range. This is consistent with representations we made during permitting. As the Board knows, the Comprehensive Plan sets targets for “affordable” units that include the construction of units affordable between 80% and 120% of area median income or “AMI.” As demonstrated at Hillside, O’Brien Brothers is committed to developing market-driven housing that is within this price range and which is accessible to a variety of homebuyer financial demographics. The current Project is no different. We are expecting a range of rents for proposed apartments and many will fall within the target bands of the Comprehensive Plan. Rents are expected to range from $1,400- $2,100 per month at initial lease-up depending upon the unit configuration.1 1 Please note these rents do not include utilities. For comparison with the “affordable rents” listed at Exhibit 008, we would recommend adding approximately $100/month for a utility allowance to cover electrical and gas utilities. This addition is based off of a HUD worksheet attached at Exhibit 012. Because the one-bedroom units proposed are smaller units, we have averaged the expected studio utilities with the expected 1-bedroom utilities, 9 More specifically, the Project is proposing approximately 120-130 one-bedroom apartments that are between 500 and 750 square feet. These apartments will have base rents of approximately $1,400-$1,650/month. If we allow for a utility allowance of $100/month that brings total housing cost, including gas and electric, to $1,500-$1,750 per month. The 80% AMI rent for this area is $1,395/month, and the 100% rent is $1,743/month (see Exhibit 008 for more details). This means that the Project will be creating approximately 120-130 dwelling units in the City that are “affordable” to people earning between approximately 80% and 100% of AMI. This is more than 1/3rd of the units proposed by the Project which are targeted toward the lower half of the affordability spectrum that is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Beyond this, the Project is proposing to construct smaller and more efficient one-bedroom units and as currently designed will bring to market approximately 67 one-bedroom apartments between 550 and 600 square feet. These apartments are expected to rent for $1400-$1,499/month, $1500-$1,599 including a utility allowance. This means that in total approximately 20% of the units proposed are designed to be rented for between approximately 86% and 92% of AMI.2 The Comprehensive Plan states at Section B, page 2-13: “Based on the Affordable Housing Committee Report’s recommendation, this plan includes targets of construction, by 2025, of 1080 new affordable housing units – 840 housing units affordable to households earning 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of AMI.” As stated, it is a clear goal of the Comprehensive Plan to create 240 housing units affordable between 80% and 120% of AMI. The Project proposes to create 120-130 apartments fully within the 80-100% thresholds and approximately 67 apartments between 86%-92% AMI. We hope this commitment to affordability demonstrates our Project’s continued consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, which sets specific targets for housing creation that this Project will meet. It should also be noted that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan go beyond the two criteria listed above which are so often the focus of the conversation. In addition to generating the targeted housing between 80% and 120% AMI, as noted above, this project will also pay approximately $1.8M in fees to the City. These fees are developed and approved by the City specifically to achieve the City’s goals and to ensure that all new development contributes to those priorities. These fees enable items such as recreation area development, traffic safety, fire safety, police safety, water infrastructure and upkeep, sewer treatment infrastructure and upkeep, zoning compliance and enforcement. In all of these areas the Project pays for what it constructs, and pays an additional sum for other parts of the City, or other areas where the City Council has deemed those funds are needed. When viewed in totality and in combination with the contributions made to all of the items listed above, we believe the Project to be economically integrated with all of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. to arrive at an estimate of $100/month. We have used this form available on the VHFA website as a placeholder for the purpose of this conversation. 2 Please note that the number of apartments listed here is a preliminary approximation. Full building designs will need to be developed to confirm the exact numbers of each unit type. Additionally, changes to the site design currently proposed, including relocation of the amenity space, could also have significant impacts on the number of apartments proposed, which could reduce the overall number of units developed. 10 The specific test that the Board is asked to make in the Regulations is whether the Project is “consistent” with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.3 While the Project may not 100% complete every goal in the Comprehensive Plan, it is certainly in agreement and compatible with those goals, and is not contradictory. That is the definition of “consistent”. Given this, we request that the Board provide the Applicant with feedback as to whether the current Project direction is “consistent” with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (A)(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. This criterion will be addressed in future applications as part of the stormwater management practices developed for the Project site. IV. Discussion of Key Issues for Sketch Plan Review: The Applicant is requesting specific guidance from the Board with regard to a few waivers required for the Project, as well as with regard to the accessory use and structure proposed. A. Accessory Use Tenant Amenity Building As shown on the site plan, the Project is proposing to construct an accessory structure on an expanded Lot 11. This structure is designed to be used by tenants as an accessory to the residential units and will include several tenant amenities, some of which are not yet fully defined. The likely amenities for tenants will be: x Resident Yoga and Exercise Room x Resident Outdoor Pool x Resident Pet Washing and Grooming Room x Resident Community Gathering Room x Resident Outdoor Patio/Pavilion x Resident Bike Repair Area/Ski Tuning Room. x Drop-off and pick-up location for resident CSA shares This building is proposed to be located strategically at the top of the Project site, it will be cut into the hillside such that it will be two stories facing the street, but only one story when viewed from Old Farm Road. The structure is envisioned as a more modern style building, designed to blend into the environment when viewed from Old Farm Road. The concept is that the structure will be placed prominently at the top of the Project where it can enjoy nice views of the surrounding area and be a focal point for prospective tenants coming to visit the Project. As outlined below, the Applicant believes that this building is an “accessory structure” as defined by the Regulations, which contains an “accessory use(s)” and therefore should be allowed as outlined by the related accessory use and structure requirements. The uses outlined above exist as 3 The Applicant would note that there is no current requirement for the Project to provide any housing that is not Market based at this time in this area of the City. 11 subordinate to the main residential use only, and but for that use would not exist and would have no users. Further, each element proposed could easily be included within any of the residential structures proposed with no additional permitting requirements, and therefore each use is fully subordinate and typical of residential multi-family buildings. The only difference proposed in this Project is that rather than build these amenity spaces in each building, they are proposed to be combined in one common tenant structure for efficiency, lack of redundancy, and for better use of the site. A full outline of the applicable definitions follows. The Applicant requests that the board please confirm that they concur the proposed Tenant Amenity Area is an accessory use in an accessory structure and that the proposed findings below are appropriate. 1. Definition of Accessory Structure: The Regulations define an accessory structure as: “A structure detached from a principal building on the same lot and customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal building or use.” 2. Definition of Accessory Use: The regulations define an accessory use as: “A use of land or property or a building or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot” 3. The Accessory Structures Section of the Regulations Includes Specific Reference to a Pool House: The Applicant notes that Section 3.10(B) specifically calls out “any accessory structure designed as a pool house.” This confirms that it is the intent of the regulations for pool houses (which is what is proposed here in large part) to be regulated as accessory structures. 4. Similar Uses to the Project Proposal are Referenced at the Accessory Structure Section: Section 3.10(A)(9) of the Regulations states: “The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principle structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts and other similar structures at grade level.” Again, the accessory structure section is specifically mentioning the exact type of amenities contemplated by the Project. We are specifically proposing an in-ground pool, and this is telling us that the pool need not count against the square footage of the structure we are allowed to build with it. The structure will certainly be less than 50% of the ground floor of the principle structures in the Project. The overwhelming message in this Section is that a pool amenity is specifically contemplated by the accessory rules. In analyzing the text of the Regulations, some attention must be paid to the fact that both definitions mention that the use must be “on the same lot.” While it is easy to understand the intent of the Regulations here, there does not seem to be an appropriate accommodation made in the Regulations for lots that are master planned (as this one is), or for large planned unit developments where multiple lots are in common ownership, and therefore multiple residents have a use for common land that may not be on their personal legal lot. This is easily remedied with a notice of conditions that the Applicant can draft and record. In Final Plat Approval SD-17-08 which was an early subdivision for the Project lands, the Applicant requested, and the Board granted an approval which affirmatively stated that the lots created shall be: “treated as one (1) lot under the Land Development Regulations, which will necessitate a 12 Notice of Condition to that effect.” Later in that same permit, the Board Decision states: “For the purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The Applicant shall record a ‘Notice of Condition’ to this effect.” The applicant did file this notice of condition. The notice of condition and Final Plat SD-17-08 are attached to this application as Exhibit 009 and Exhibit 010. The Applicant would suggest that a similar finding is possible for this particular situation. The proposed finding could read: “Project lots 10-15 are being developed simultaneously in one planned unit development and shall be considered one lot for the purposes of the LDR’s as pertains to accessory uses and accessory structures.” Applicant would similarly suggest that a notice of conditions to this effect could be recorded if needed. While the Applicant realizes this is not the most straightforward situation, as the Board contemplates if this should be viewed as an accessory use, the Applicant would point out that if it is not an accessory use, and the requested finding is not issued, there appears to be no alternative accurate use classification available. The proposed space is not an indoor recreation facility, which implies public presence, it is not a gym, and it is not a community center. The public is not invited and the uses extend well beyond recreation (pet washing basins, bike repair tables, etc.). What is proposed is a building on common land owned by the association, designed to allow common space for items that are typically in each individual structure, but that are here proposed in a single common exterior structure, to allow for a peaceful and enjoyable environment, and to allow for social interaction and community building. The space is intended for residents of the PUD only, which makes it accessory to the PUD and subordinate to the multi-family buildings proposed. The space specifically proposes a pool and associated structure, which the Regulations mention as being accessory in their text, and no alternative accurate use appears to be available in the regulations for the specific uses proposed. The Applicant requests the boards feedback on this issue as it will have significant impacts on site design for the Project. B. Height and Setback Waivers: Attached as Exhibit 005 are six renderings of the proposed Project which are provided to illustrate the height, setback and site design proposed. Below, we have discussed each image and the key elements shown. A site plan attached at Exhibit 005 shows the location of each view described below. As mentioned above, the height of the structures proposed are necessary to achieve the density contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for this portion of the City. The Applicant has worked closely with its architects and land planners to develop a proposal that softens the appearance of the height required, creates transitions to larger buildings, and which lends to an overall aesthetic that is in keeping with the area and the City’s plan for this area. The Applicant requests the Boards review of the proposed site design, with specific attention to the height and setbacks proposed, as that feedback is integral to submission of Preliminary Plat. Below please find a brief description of each view provided, which summarizes the key aspects of each rendering. For reference, the Applicant has assumed a parking story height of 12’. Each subsequent floor is assumed to be approximately 11’. We have assumed flat roofs for all of the buildings, and a 4’ parapet 13 wall is shown above the last story. These heights could change and would possible result in a reduction of the overall height needed. 1. View 01: This first view provides the Board with perspective as to how the development will look when standing immediately across from the proposed entrance on Kennedy Drive. As you can see, we have proposed a smaller 3-story building at the front right, which is the closest structure to Kennedy Drive. The Applicant would note that the proposed height of this building as defined in the regulations is likely about 42-45’, depending on the preconstruction grade. This represents an approximate 7-10’ overage from what is allowed in the Regulations. The Applicant has also proposed a small office building immediately at the entrance which helps to break up the mass of and provide transition to the larger structures proposed toward the left side of the rendering. Despite the fact that the current renderings show no architectural features, which will also help to break up the massing, the Applicant believes that this rendering shows a site plan which looks consistent in massing and which is not imposing on Kennedy Drive. The larger four-story over parking structures shown at the left side of this rendering are approximately 54-57’ tall. Lastly, the Applicant would point out that no open parking is visible from this view. The Applicant has been intentional about locating parking where it is shielded from the public way by buildings. 2. View 02: This view provides a slightly different angle of the Project entrance looking from the recreation path on Kennedy Drive. Here the Board can see a better view of the two larger “L” shaped structures proposed. As shown, the buildings blend in well to the hillside, and have been set back enough to avoid them feeling imposing upon the road. The office building planned again provides a nice break and step up into the higher density area. Again, no open parking is visible from this view. This streetscape seems in keeping with similar existing streetscapes at Eldredge Street. 3. View 03: This view represents the most dynamic transition for the Project, which is the direct transition from the duplex area to the multi-family portion, and we feel this transition has been quite successful. On the right side of the rendering, the uphill side of the street, you can see that a three-story building over podium is proposed. This building is proposed to be three-story such that it will make the transition from the 2-story over walkout-story townhome more gradual. It represents growth of one-story only on the uphill side, which is a gradual step up. Indeed, in this image the building does not look imposing. Both architectural and landscaping treatments will be used to soften this even more as we move through the Project design. On the left side of the photo, the downhill side, the Applicant has proposed a four-story over podium structure, but as you can see has also proposed a step back in the upper story. As shown, this step back will soften the transition. A nice rooftop amenity would be anticipated there, which will add some visual interest and also help to soften that transition. As shown, the Applicant believes the current plan negotiates this transition quite well. It should be noted that owners of the townhomes adjacent to these structures (if this permit goes through timely), are likely to be buying simultaneous with construction of these larger 14 buildings. Therefore, the concern of this impact of the transition on those buyers is lessened. The market will value that transition and they will purchase with the full knowledge of what is coming. It should also be noted that in our marketing collateral for the neighborhood portion of the project we have included “placeholder” building renderings showing essentially this exact scenario: a 4-story multifamily building over a podium base with a step-back of the fourth story on the southern elevation of the building closest to the townhomes. 4. View 04: This view illustrates the transition on Two-Brothers Drive into the multi-family section. We believe this transition to be extremely successful. As shown, the natural grade dives down in the area of the proposed three-story structures. This allows those structures to appear as though they are only two-stories when viewed from the single-family street. With additional landscaping and some architectural interest, this transition is quite successful and should not pose any challenges. It is also noteworthy that the grade change going into the parking area for the proposed building shields that area from view. With roads on three sides of this building it was impossible to not see the parking, but given the grade change, the parking is cut in to the hillside, and therefore much less visible. 5. View 05: This view presents the Project as seen from Old Farm Road. As you can see, the proposed structures do not reach above the existing tree line at Kennedy Drive, and therefore have no adverse impact on the views from Old Farm Road. As the hillside drops away from Old Farm Road, the structures are tucked in nicely, and sit just above the land. One other small detail relative to View 03, is the roofline of the townhome shown at the left side. As you can see, the townhomes are fairly tall in this area, and they transition as a step up to the larger building. This view also shows how the proposed accessory structure relates to the site. As you can see, this is a nice flat section of the project to locate this amenity. There will be an open feeling to the space that will provide residents with a spectacular amenity. The accessory structure will present as only one story as viewed from Old Farm Road, and this is intentional to keep it in line with the existing trees along the horizon, ensuring that existing views are not lessened. The current plan shows a roofline that is still under consideration, but is meant to illustrate that the building will have some design to create an attractive central amenity. 6. View 06: This view provides a slightly different perspective from Old Farm Road, in the area where O’Brien Farm Road will eventually connect to Old Farm Road as part of a future phase. Again, the Applicant has designed the structures to sit just above the hillside, to stay in line with the existing trees in the horizon line, and to blend in very well with the terrain. Despite the fact that some larger buildings and parking areas are proposed, the view from the public way is modest and unimposing. V. Conclusion: As outlined above, the Applicant has expanded upon the foundation built by the Master Plan and the Final Plat with the proposed Project. As designed, the Project will construct nearly all of the dwelling units contemplated within the Master Plan, as well as some office space or other applicable 15 and authorized commercial use, realizing the vision first discussed a few years ago and the density sought by the Regulations and Comprehensive Plan in this area. The Applicant has honored the commitments made at the Master Plan to use the residential for- sale homes as a transition into the multi-family portion of the Master Plan. The buildings now being designed have been placed in a manner to shield parking from view, to fit the grade of the land, and to provide for logical and stepped transitions creating a visually cohesive and appealing development. The Applicant believes that the Project is in keeping with the spirit of what has been discussed with the Board since 2016 when initial applications for this land were filed, and the Applicant is pleased to be offering an apartment product that will provide 67 1-bedroom apartments priced below 90% of AMI assuming as outlined above. The Applicant has done everything possible to realize efficiencies in site design and planning to make these rents achievable, and the last remaining items and decisions that will make this project work are now in the hands of the Board. The height and setback waivers, as well as the proposed tenant amenity building location are critical to ensuring that the Project can be built as planned. For this reason, the Applicant has presented this sketch plan to ensure that the Board is supportive of the direction the Project is heading, before proceeding to Preliminary Plat. We look forward to the Board’s review of the key issues presented, and to a great discussion at our upcoming hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Director of Development Enclosures Hillside&O'BrienFarmLotCoverageCalculations8ͲNovͲ18Lot# Area(sq.ft.) Area(acres)BuildingArea(sq.ft.)BuildingCoverage(%)Roads/Walks/Drives(sq.ft.)ImperviousArea(sq.ft.)TotalCoverage(%)3 88665 2.04 0 0.0 0 0 0.04 46339 1.06 0 0.0 0 0 0.05 380323 8.73 120899 31.8 21170 142069 37.46 132237 3.04 0 0.0 1960 1960 1.57 106494 2.44 37513 35.2 7495 45008 42.38 202366 4.65 31603 15.6 13877 45480 22.59 79777 1.83 23606 29.6 6843 30449 38.210 40634 0.93 12658 31.2 15895 28553 70.311 49488 1.14 12658 25.6 17225 29883 60.412 53608 1.23 16860 31.5 22338 39198 73.113 76763 1.76 35250 45.9 22663 57913 75.414 61998 1.42 12658 20.4 16927 29585 47.715 85585 1.96 25350 29.6 15115 40465 47.3ROWs 298251 6.85 0 0.0 189444 189444 63.5TOTAL 1702528 39.08 329055 19.3 350952.0 680007 39.9 View OneView TwoViewThreeViewFourView 05View 06 View 001 View 002 View 003 View 004 View 005 View 006 ,ŝůůƐŝĚĞƚKΖƌŝĞŶ&ĂƌŵWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ>Žƚη ƵŝůĚŝŶŐdLJƉĞ dŽƚĂůϭĞĚƌŽŽŵ dŽƚĂůϮĞĚƌŽŽŵ dŽƚĂůhŶŝƚƐŽǀĞƌĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐKŶ>Žƚ džƚĞƌŝŽƌWĂƌŬŝŶŐKŶ>ŽƚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚŽŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐdŽƚĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐdŽƚĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐKŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐWĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐZŽƵŶĚĞĚhƉƚŽEĞĂƌĞƐƚtŚŽůĞEƵŵďĞƌWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;džĐůƵĚŝŶŐKŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ůĞƐƐWĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚͿWŽƐŝƚŝǀĞс^ƉĂĐĞƐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĞLJŽŶĚZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐϭϬ KŶĞ ϭϴ ϭϱ ϯϯ ϯϮ Ϯϲ ϳ ϲϱ ϱϴ ϱϲ͘Ϯϱ ϱϳ ϭϭϭ KŶĞ ϭϴ ϭϱ ϯϯ ϯϮ Ϯϳ ϭϬ ϲϵ ϱϵ ϱϲ͘Ϯϱ ϱϳ ϮϭϮ dǁŽ Ϯϵ ϮϮ ϱϭ ϰϯ ϰϰ ϳ ϵϰ ϴϳ ϴϱ͘ϳϱ ϴϲ ϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞ ϳϬ ϭϲ ϴϲ ϲϮ ϲϲ ϭϱ ϭϰϯ ϭϮϴ ϭϮϯ͘ϱ ϭϮϰ ϰϭϰ KŶĞ ϭϴ ϭϱ ϯϯ ϯϮ Ϯϲ Ϭ ϱϴ ϱϴ ϱϲ͘Ϯϱ ϱϳ ϭϭϱ dŚƌĞĞ ϳϬ ϭϲ ϴϲ ϲϬ ϲϴ Ϭ ϭϮϴ ϭϮϴ ϭϮϯ͘ϱ ϭϮϰ ϰdŽƚĂů ϮϮϯ ϵϵ ϯϮϮ Ϯϲϭ Ϯϱϳ ϯϵ ϱϱϳ ϱϭϴ ϱϬϭ͘ϱ ϱϬϱ ϭϯ