HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05A_SD-18-34_255 Kennedy Dr_OBrien Farm Rd LLC_SC #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