HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SD-19-14_255 Kennedy_Obrien Farm Road LLC_FP_SC#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
1
1 of 8
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐14_255 Kennedy_Obrien Farm Road LLC_FP_2019‐
05‐21.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 17, 2019
Plans received: April 25, 2019
255 Kennedy Drive
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐14
Meeting date: May 21, 2019
Owner/Applicant
O’Brien Farm Road, 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.B
Residential 7 District
39.16 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐14 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC. to amend a previously approved planned
unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family
dwellings, and 3) 14 lots. The amendment consists of replacing five two (2) family dwellings with five
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
2
2 of 8
single family dwellings, 255 Kennedy Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received final plat approval on August 17, 2017 (#SD‐17‐17). The project also has master
plan approval, which includes conditions allowing the applicant to go directly to final plat for this
requested amendment.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 4/25/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The proposed dwelling units to be swapped out from duplexes to single family homes are located at the
northern end of the approved segment of Two Brothers Drive. The homes on the opposite side of the
road are already approved as single family homes. On the same side of the street and to the south is
approved to also be single family homes. On the same side of the street and to the north the applicant
is in the process of applying for approval for larger multi‐family buildings. Staff has clouded the area on
the provided plat where the homes are proposed to be swapped.
The approved grade through the center of the homes to be swapped is approximately elevation 380.
The existing grade of the multi‐family lot to the north varies from 385 to 360, with the average being
approximately elevation 372.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
R7 Zoning District Required* Proposed
Min. Lot Size (Single Family) 6,000 sf 2.44 ac**
Max. Building Coverage 30% 14.0%
Max. Overall Coverage 40% 29.0%
Min. Front Setback 6 ft. 8 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 10 ft.
X1 Min. Rear Setback 19 to 24 ft. 3 ft.
X2 Height (pitched roof) 33.28 to 36.40
ft.
No information
provided
* Required dimensions reflect approved waivers
** The applicant is approved for 19 units on this lot, and is requesting to reduce the number of
units to 14.
The applicant has indicated in their application narrative that the footprint lots for the single family
homes will be 22‐feet deeper than the footprint lots proposed for the duplexes. Though the
distance to the property line varies by home, if home buyers choose the deepest structure, this
results in a request for a minimum rear yard setback of 3‐feet.
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
3
3 of 8
1. The Board may not approve setback waiver requests resulting in setbacks less than 5 feet, therefore
Staff considers this request not approvable. These homes are proposed to be located immediately
adjacent to a public park to be dedicated to the City. Staff considers park users may not feel
comfortable walking within 5 feet of private homes, and recommends the Board consider whether
to grant an additional waiver beyond what was already approved for these lots given the location of
the lots immediately adjacent to a park to be dedicated to the City. This issue is discussed further
below under the PUD standard pertaining to open space.
2. As part of the previous approval, the applicant provided a table of requested heights. No update
has been provided for the revised homes. Adjacent homes are approved to be 34.07 to 34.33 feet
high.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply
with the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project.
(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.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
(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.
Staff consider compliance with these four criteria not affected by the proposed change from 10 units
in duplexes to 5 single family homes.
(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.
The approved development pattern for the Project calls for an area of single family and duplex
homes leading into an area of multi‐family homes to the north. The location of the swapped
homes is immediately adjacent to the planned multi‐family homes. Excerpts from the
applicant’s cover letter supporting this criterion follow.
In addition to the market demand for single family homes, the Applicant is also looking to
unify the character of Two Brothers Drive via this amendment. As currently proposed the
majority of the street is single family homes, with these five duplex buildings added on to
the end. At the time Hillside was permitted, the Applicant had not completed any
preliminary work on the multi‐family structures proposed and considered the duplex
structures being larger would help to ease the transition. At this point, the Applicant has a
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
4
4 of 8
good understanding of what might be built and how it fits on the site. The rendering
attached as Exhibit 005 shows the streetscape on Two Brothers Drive at the transition to
the multi‐family area. As you will see, the grading in this area allows for a very soft
transition with the larger building dropping away. Given this, the bulk of the duplex
structure is not necessary to ease that transition as initially believed. For this reason, the
applicant believes it will be better to keep the homes in the same character along the
entirety of the street.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss the visual compatibility of the single family homes with the
approved development pattern.
4. While Staff is not particularly concerned about an overall reduction of five dwelling units, Staff
recommends the Board also discuss what amount of change in the number of units may warrant a
master plan amendment in the future in order to guide Staff and the applicant as they build out the
remaining development.
(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.
5. As discussed above, the proposed setbacks result in structures being located as near as 3 feet to the
approved open space area in the middle of the site. The central open space was a major design
feature of the approved project, and Staff recommends the Board consider this criterion in making it’s
determination on allowable rear setbacks. The applicant has provided the following excerpt from
their cover letter in support of their requested setback waiver.
The Applicant notes that these reduced setbacks are internal to the Project, and will result
merely in homes being closer to the park boundary. While this may be a market concern for
home‐buyers, the Applicant does not feel that proximate homes in any way diminishes the
value of the park space, which at this area of the park (narrow section at the north) serves
mostly as a greenspace buffer and is really only a connector trail that will not be impacted by
this waiver. The applicant notes that this portion of the site has very steep grade changes. A
site section is provided at Exhibit 007. This view illustrates just how far below the homes in
terms of real elevation the walking path will be. We view this proximity as perfectly in
keeping with the community being developed, where homes, paths and public spaces are
intertwined. We are confident that the design will encourage neighborly interaction, and
that the people buying these homes will see proximity to the park as a benefit. For these
reasons, we feel the distance to the property boundary is not an issue.
Staff notes the provided landscaping does not result in screening between the homes and the park,
which may factor into the Board’s discussion of setbacks.
(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.
(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.
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
5
5 of 8
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that
is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type
of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the proposed change from 10
units in duplexes to 5 single family homes. The fire chief indicated by email on April 29, 2019 he had
no concerns with the changes.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
The Project is located in the northwest quadrant. Objectives include maintaining existing affordable
diverse residential neighborhoods and access to neighborhood parks and other amenities, allowing
for infill development, creating transitions from the Airport, and ensuring compatibility of University
land uses with existing development. Staff consider compliance with this criterion not affected by
the proposed change from 10 units in duplexes to 5 single family homes.
(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.
Staff consider compliance with this criterion not affected by the proposed change from 10 units in
duplexes to 5 single family homes.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies
for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with the comprehensive plan is discussed above under PUD standards.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas.
See discussion of transition under PUD criterion 5 above.
The applicant is proposing to replace the plantings around the swapped buildings with the schematic
planting plans already approved for single family homes. This results in a reduction in $3,984 of the
landscape budget. There is no minimum required landscape budget for single family or duplex homes.
Staff considers the other elements of this criterion unaffected by the proposed change.
(2) Parking:
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
6
6 of 8
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one
or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) N/A
(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two‐family home
Staff consider compliance with this criterion not affected by the proposed change from 10 units in
duplexes to 5 single family homes.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
The applicant is proposing to use homes selected from the already‐approved pallet of homes for the
replacement homes. The applicant’s approved building design memorandum limits the number of
identical homes on Two Brothers drive to three. There are three approved single family home types
that could be used in the location of the proposed homes (downhill units), and there are 14 total
downhill homes on Two Brother Drive which must use these three types. Under the previously
approval, there were only 9 homes which had to use the three types. The applicant’s approved design
memorandum includes a number of ways to modify a home type which result in non‐identical units,
including mirroring, color changes, changes to gables, windows or roof lines, or modifications to the
pallet of materials.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they anticipate difficulties meeting
the approved design requirements with the replaced homes.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
By using the approved home types, Staff considers this criterion met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
7
7 of 8
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the proposed change from 10 units in
duplexes to 5 single family homes.
A. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
There are no minimum landscaping requirements for single family or duplex homes.
The applicant is proposing to relocate three street trees to accommodate the replaced homes.
The applicant is also proposing to provide a boulder wall in lieu of a pre‐cast concrete block wall
within the park. The wall is proposed to be three feet high and located along a sidewalk. Staff has
no concerns with this change.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five
(5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
Compliance with this criterion is discussed under dimensional and PUD standards above.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the proposed change from 10 units in
duplexes to 5 single family homes.
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
#SD‐19‐14
Staff Comments
8
8 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner