Commissioners review Parcel B redesign for Bellastoria PAD; design, density and open space draw questions

A town planner showed commissioners a proposed PAD amendment and design‑review submittal for Parcel B of the Bellastoria Planned Area Development (Bellastoria PAD), saying the applicant has revised the earlier plan and increased multifamily capacity on the parcel.

The developer’s revised plan would replace the previously approved building design with a new layout that places a large three‑story (with pockets of four‑story) building directly along Williams Field Road, adds a two‑story parking garage behind that building, and increases multifamily totals for the overall Bellastoria development. Planning staff said the modified plan increases overall density across the development to about 12.5 dwelling units per acre (up from about 11.6) and shows Parcel B at roughly 22 dwelling units per acre with 367 units on that parcel (previously 304). Staff said the whole development’s multifamily total rises to 691 units across the PAD and that the parking plan provides about 607 spaces.

Why it matters: the change is not a simple cosmetic revision — staff said the applicant’s earlier design was not in substantial conformance with the previously approved development plan, triggering the formal PAD amendment and design‑review presentation. Commissioners used the work session to flag design, context and circulation concerns and to give staff direction before a future public hearing.

Commission discussion and staff notes

Planner Keith Newman (planning staff) walked commissioners through renderings, elevations and the landscape concept. The site plan concentrates open space and amenities — including a dog park, fountain, two pickleball courts and active lawns — along the eastern boundary adjacent to an anticipated future commercial parcel; staff noted about 43% common open space shown on the landscape exhibit, which is roughly 13% more than required. Newman told the commission the applicant held a virtual neighborhood meeting in November that attracted no attendees.

Commissioners focused on appearance and transitions to surrounding single‑family neighborhoods. Commissioner Davis suggested breaking up the look of the row of buildings along the northern edge (Buildings 5–9) — for example by staggering façades or adding varied entrances and arches — to avoid the appearance of “one long building.” Commissioner Simon said he preferred the new site plan’s flow but described the elevations as “bland” and suggested more articulated materials or color along Williams Field Road. Vice Chair Fay asked whether the road along the north (Haskell Street) would be private or dedicated; planning staff and public works staff said it is planned as a private street in a tract but that the project will construct portions of the roadway consistent with the PAD cross‑section and that on‑street parking is permitted under that cross‑section. Commissioners also discussed sight lines, the relationship to Cooley Station and whether the Spanish‑style architecture proposed fits the Gateway character area; staff said the Gateway standards do not require a specific architectural style and that Spanish‑style features exist in the area.

Ending

Staff did not present a recommendation for a vote at the work session but indicated they will return the item for public hearing after design‑review comments and any required plan revisions. Commissioners asked staff to convey feedback to the applicant about: differentiating the northern carriage buildings, reviewing parking garage façades for better screening, and clarifying the public/private status of adjacent roadway construction. Newman said staff will provide additional details on rights‑of‑way and construction in the public‑hearing packet.