HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-18-34 - Supplemental - 0455 Kennedy DriveCITY 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
/
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Disposal of Waste
The applicant has indicated solid waste handling areas on the plan.
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.
Landscaping and Screening Requirements
The Applicant has not provided any information at this time as to how they will comply with these criteria.
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